Grab your future with an e-portfolio!

2 downloads 593 Views 2MB Size Report
language and can be accessed via http://www.mosep.org. MOSEP is a .... Secondly, it presents the results of a search for
Grab your future with an e-portfolio!

& Study on new qualifications and skills needed by teachers and career counsellors to empower young students with the e-portfolio concept and tools Summary Report

Grab your future with an e-portfolio!

& Study on new qualifications and skills needed by teachers and career counsellors to empower young students with the e-portfolio concept and tools Summary Report

Imprint Project information

MOSEP – More Self-Esteem with my e-Portfolio

Leonardo Da Vinci – the European Programme for Vocational Education and Training Pilot project – A 06/B/F/PP - 158.301

August 2006 - August 2008 http://www.mosep.org Project partners

Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft – Austria Pädagogisches Institut Niederösterreich – Austria Pädagogische Akademie Salzburg – Austria

Student Computer Art Society – Bulgaria

Landesakademie für Fortbildung – Germany European Institute for e-Learning – France

Kaunas University of Technology – Lithuania

University of Science and Technology – Poland

Potydysgu – Bridge to Learning – United Kingdom

Wolsingham School & Community College – United Kingdom Contact

Salzburg Research/EduMedia Group

Wolf Hilzensauer

Jakob Haringerstrasse 5/3, 5020 Salzburg, Austria [email protected]

+43-662-2288-323 Authors

Graham Attwell, Pontydysgu – Bridge to Learning (United Kingdom)

Agnieszka Chrza˛szcz, University of Science & Technology (Poland)

John Pallister, Wolsingham School & Community College (United Kingdom)

Veronika Hornung-Prähauser, Wolf Hilzensauer, Salzburg Research (Austria) Graphics & Layout

Daniela Gnad, Salzburg Research Pictures & Illustrations

iStock, Dosch Design, Salzburg Research, Neubau Online

Imprint

A digital version of this Summary Report can be downloaded free-of-charge from http://www.mosep.org Print version

ISBN 3-902448-10-5

Printed in Poland, October 2007

Content Foreword

4

1

Introduction

6

1.2

Scope of study

7

1.1 1.3

Background to and context of this study Methodology

6

8

2

Young learners’ needs and the potential of e-portfolios

10

2.2

Theoretical background for supporting adolescent learners

16

2.1 2.3 3

The European problem of disrupted learning biographies

Experiences from e-portfolio pilot projects with young learners

10

25

The pedagogical e-portfolio concept in schools

28

Expectations related to the introduction of e-portfolios

31

3.1

Background to the e-portfolio concept and tools

3.3

The role of using educational technologies for e-portfolios

35

New skills and competencies for e-portfolio teaching and counselling

48

Competencies and skills

50

The design of the MOSEP e-portfolio training course

58

5

The Open Source approach to e-portfolio software

62

5.2

The importance of Open Source systems in education

62

3.2 3.4 4

Critical issues in developing and implementing e-portfolios

4.1

The changing way we learn

4.3

The role of teachers, trainers and vocational counsellors in e-portfolio work

4.2 4.4

5.1 5.3

5.4 5.5 5.6

Approach, selection and analysis method Analysis of e-portfolio software products

28

37

48 52

62

63

Classification according to institutional and individual benefit

64

Categorisation and assessment of the range of functions

67

Description of functional features

66

5.7

Assessment of appropriateness for e-portfolio beginners

68

6

References

72

7

ANNEX: Practical links

80

7.1

List of e-portfolio software

82

Foreword “Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one’s self-esteem. That is why young children, before they are aware of

their own self-importance, learn so easily.”

Thomas Szasz

The willingness to put one’s self esteem on the line may be one of the key factors for self

determined learning. Once adolescents are comfortable with determining their own des-

tiny with respect to learning they will become open-minded to new ways of organising their learning. This appears to be a prerequisite for the kind of life-long learning which

should become the foundation of the knowledge based society. And the need for change

applies to teachers as well: they too, will need new skills and competencies in order to

be suitable companions for the self-determined young learners they will be faced with.

The MOSEP project – more self-esteem with my e-portfolio – aimed at providing a study, course materials and on-line information to acquire these competencies.

The study you are reading provides some of the theoretical background and practical

guidelines for teachers and vocational counsellors in order to equip them for the chal-

lenges that they will face as roles change from “teacher” to “learning companion”.

Chapter two describes the theoretical background for supporting adolescent learners.

It then describes the novel concept of e-portfolio and demonstrates its uses in life-long learning for this particular group. Chapter three looks at e-portfolio from an institu-

tional and organisational perspective and points at some of the critical success factors in implementing the methods and tools in a formal educational context. Chapter four

specifies new competencies and skills for teachers when their role changes towards sup-

porting the learners in an e-portfolio environment. Chapter five gives a survey of current software tools for e-portfolio work with special emphasis on the functionality expected

from such tools. The study also looks at the suitability of these solutions for e-portfolio beginners.

In addition to the study the MOSEP consortium also developed course material for

teachers, trainers and vocational counsellors. The course is organised in an open Wikisoftware containing practical modules on how to implement and support e-portfolio

processes. The course is available in English, German, Polish, Lithuanian, and Bulgarian language and can be accessed via http://www.mosep.org.

MOSEP is a practical guide to e-portfolio in life-long learning, which aims at raising

the awareness of a broad audience. I would like to thank the whole consortium for their

contributions to achieving this objective. Particular thanks go to the authors of the study,

Graham Attwell, Agnieszka Chrzaszcz, John Pallister, and Veronika Hornung-Prähauser.

My thanks also extend to Martin Prokoph and Markus Ulrich from the Bundeswehr

University, Diana Wieden-Bischof, Sandra Schaffert and Daniela Gnad from Salzburg

Foreword

Research all of whom assisted in finalising this summary report.

Wolf Hilzensauer

Project Co-ordinator

4

1

Introduction

5

1 Introduction 1.1 Background to and context of this study In almost all European countries, educationalists and apprenticeship tutors complain

about the high drop-out rates of schools and vocational education and training (VET)

and the high level of unemployed young people with no qualifications (Hans de Boer,

Youth Unemployment Taskforce Netherlands, 2003). The problem is not confined to the Netherlands; throughout Europe there are ominous signs that a class is emerging of

poorly educated young people with disrupted learning biographies and little chance of

finding jobs. The European Union is extremely concerned about the above mentioned

issues and has set a target of having, by 2010, an EU average rate of no more than 10 per

cent of early school leavers (age 18-24) – in 2006 it averaged 16 per cent (European Com-

mission, 2006).

This study examines ways and methods to combat this problem and has been produced as part of the EU project MOSEP (more self-esteem with my e-portfolio), which is an

innovative project being funded under the European Commission’s Leonardo da Vinci

Programme (August 2006 to August 2008). MOSEP addresses the problem of early school leavers at the stage at which young learners are in danger of dropping out of the formal education system, in adolescence.

Young learners, between the age of 14 and 16, find themselves at transition points in

their lives at which they have to choose between going into upper secondary education

“The middle school years are a critical turning point

in young people’s lives. Early adolescence is an important time for youth to adjust to a rapidly changing body,

learn new cognitive abilities, form positive social relationships, develop a positive sense of self,

and forge a personal code of ethics and morality.”

Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Jackson & Davis, 2000

or entering vocational training. It is a time when they have

to make decisions and need to be supported in making the

best choices for their future careers. Adolescent research

suggests that students at the transitional stage of development between childhood and adulthood need specific

forms of learning support (Bandura, 2006; Pajares et al.,

2006). This is the case especially for developing personal

competencies, such as goal setting and accomplishment,

self-organisation and self-confidence, and developing a

vision of professional life. As one powerful instrument in this development process, the

MOSEP project proposes the innovative eLearning concept of ‘e-portfolio’, because at the heart of this pedagogical approach is a learner-centred model allowing a greater degree of personalisation of learning and of motivating and empowering students to acquire

Introduction

the self-organisational skills needed to succeed in today’s knowledge economy and to

become self-confident and competent 21st-century citizens. Furthermore, the e-portfo-

lio concept is a powerful means of aiding inclusion in both social and educational terms

as it encourages the celebration of achievements – the wide pallet of skills and interests that a young person has gained both in and out of school.

However, in order to assist young learners in their personal development, Europe needs teachers and careers counsellors trained in the e-portfolio concept and its technical

implementation with web-based e-portfolio software. Successful implementation of the e-portfolio approach demands re-thinking the way we approach teaching and learning

today. Teachers require specific competencies to support learners in creating and main-

taining their e-portfolios – and in evaluating the outcomes. For the learners themselves,

the challenge is to acquire the necessary competencies for building a portfolio and, more

fundamentally, developing as reflective learners and accepting greater responsibility for their learning journeys and careers.

6

1.2 Scope of study MOSEP experiments with the use of electronic portfolios as a means of supporting both the adolescents and the teaching and counselling staff working with young learners

during transition phases. A strong European partnership – from Austria, Bulgaria, France,

Germany, Lithuania, Poland and the UK – is working closely with a network of experts

across Europe to produce an e-portfolio ‘toolkit’ specifically designed for initial and in-

service teacher trainers and vocational counsellors. This toolkit will include an e-portfolio

training course, which will be developed during the two-year project. The purpose of this study is to provide insights for the course developers and to serve as background mate-

rial for all e-portfolio trainers in the growing e-portfolio community and beyond.

Therefore, the study:

| outlines the problem of young early school leavers in the countries taking part in the EU project MOSEP (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, United

Kingdom) and identifies their needs for specific learning support. It looks for examples of schools that have used e-portfolios with this age group. The outcome is an over-

view of success factors for implementing this new instrument in daily school practice

(Chapter 2);

| introduces the concept of e-portfolio and its potential for improving young learners’

educational engagement and vocational orientation in theory. Keywords of the e-port-

folio concept, purpose, functions and phases are described. The role of applying technology is discussed and critical issues related to this are highlighted (Chapter 3);

| proposes the new qualifications needed by pupils and teachers for implementing this

concept. The report focuses on competencies to be acquired by both pupils and teach-

ers. In particular, it discusses the changing role of the latter in coaching young learners

by using the e-portfolio themselves (Chapter 4), and

| provides an overview of Open Source tools, especially for those new to the (electronic) e-portfolio concept (Chapter 5).

7

The conclusions serve to define learning objectives for teachers using e-portfolios and to develop a train-the-trainer course based on the e-portfolio concept and tools. The phi-

losophy and MOSEP course structure are described in Chapter 4 and can be downloaded

from http://www.mosep.org.

1.3 Methodology The authors of this study applied the following research instruments:

| Desk research – secondary material from studies in the fields of educational and psychological research and conference proceedings (in particular, national and interna-

tional e-portfolio conferences).

| Interviews with e-portfolio experts, teachers and career counsellors already piloting this approach with young learners.

| Case studies about e-portfolio usage in the age group of young learners (high school level) were carried out in each MOSEP country (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany,

Introduction

Lithuania, Poland, United Kingdom).

8

2

Young learners’ needs and the potential of e-portfolios

9

2 Young learners’ needs and the potential of e-portfolios This chapter first outlines the problem of young early school leavers in the countries taking part in the EU project MOSEP (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland

and United Kingdom). Secondly, it presents the results of a search for best practice examples of the use of e-portfolios for young learners in schools, especially for developing

personal skills. Finally, success factors in applying this new instrument in daily school practice are summarised.

2.1 The European problem of disrupted learning biographies This section looks more closely at the situation of early school leavers* and drop-outs in

those countries taking part in the MOSEP project. It illustrates the intensity of the prob-

lem with statistics, and investigates various reasons for early school leaving and national

strategies addressing this development. The findings are based on the country reports of

“Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of Vocational Education and Training Sys-

tems” of 2004. In addition, national studies were used for supportive and detailed infor-

mation.

Austria | Situation and data

In Austria, the number of school drop-outs ranged between 9 and 10 per cent in the year

2002/03 (Steiner, 2005 and Schmid, 2004). The statistic includes young learners between the age of 15 and 24 years. Whereas only 5.9 per cent leave formal education at the age of 15-16, the percentage increases to 12.6 per cent at the age of 23-24 (Steiner, 2005).

8 per cent of this cohort end their school career after compulsory school attendance and

4 per cent without graduating (Riepl, 2004). All the data from Steiner’s study were calcu-

Young learners’ needs

lated on the basis of the micro census.

However, even if the rate of drop-out is very low compared with other European countries, three different groups of early school leavers could be identified: | young learners with a migrant background;

| young learners with parents who have a low level of formal education, and | young learners with some type of handicap (Schmid, 2004).

*Individual characteristics of early school leavers and factors influencing early school leaving as they appear in the latest Commission report on “Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in educa-tion and training” (European Commission, 2006): “Young people at risk” are the group of early school leavers often with differing motivation. Who are the school leavers?: those who experience difficulty in meeting the academic demands of school, who get low grades, and who repeat a grade level are those most likely to become early school leavers. The average age of young people leaving education with only primary or lower secondary education ranged between 14.5 (Greece) and 19.6 (in Denmark) in 2004. In Greece, Italy, Hungary and Romania, young people tend to leave education earlier than in other countries (at around the age of 15). There is less variation between countries at ISCED levels 3 and 4: the oldest school leavers are in Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands (on average they leave at around the age of 20), while the youngest are in Slovakia and Hungary (around the age of 18). The school leavers might be divided into: | positive leavers, who choose to take up employment, apprenticeship or alternative career paths; | opportune leavers, who haven’t decided on a career path, but leave to take up a job or perhaps a relationship in preference to school; | would-be leavers, or ‘reluctant stayers’, who prefer to leave but lack opportunities beyond school; | circumstantial leavers, who leave school for non-educational reasons, for example family need; | discouraged leavers, who have not had success in their schooling, and who have low levels of performance and interest; | alienated leavers, whose needs may be similar to the discouraged students, but which are more difficult to meet. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/progressreport06.pdf

10

Reasons for early school leaving and drop-out

Reasons for dropping out and leaving school within the above problem groups are: | social background; | ethnic origin;

| educational background of the parents, and

| unemployment of parents (Steiner, 2005, section 2.3). Other studies focus on some other aspects, such as: | excessive demands or poor performance;

| problems with teachers or, in the case of teaching, with supervisors; | an aversion to learning and to school in general, and | motivation by peers to drop out (Riepl, 2004, p. 19).

Finally, reasons such as illness or personal wishes, like the desire to earn money or a neg-

ative attitude of the parents towards school (some asking too much of their children or

some perhaps against a higher education level), have been identified (Riepl, 2004, p. 20). Initiatives to tackle early school leaving and drop-out

In general, three types of activities to combat this problem are suggested

(Riedl, 2004, p. 33):

| preventive actions;

| supporting further educational opportunities;

| identifying the consequences of school drop-out. The Austrian Ministry of Education focuses on the last two possibilities

for tackling the problem: On the one hand it “offers IVET opportunities to

young people with ‘learning problems’ after general compulsory schooling: these take the form of ‘Integrative Berufsausbildung’ (Integrated Vocational Training)

and the provision of training places either in a company, a school or in a training program of the Austrian Public Employment service. On the other hand it

offers ways to make up the school-leaving qualification of compulsory schooling

(‘Hauptschulabschluss’) or the apprenticeship certificate: second-chance schools.” (Schmid, 2004, p. 4)

Bulgaria | Situation and data

“According to Eurostat data the rate of early school leavers follows an increasing trend (from 20.3% in 2001, and 21.0% in 2002 to 22.4% in 2003). … The drop-outs from the

system are reported to account for 3.0% in 2002/2003 (1998/1999 - 3.1%, 1999/2000

- 2.6%, 2000/2001 - 2.9%, 2001/2002 - 2.7%). There is no data for drop-outs by ethnic

groups, however estimations of Ministry of Education and science suggest that most of

the drop-outs in basic education are children from Roma origin. … For students from the

rural areas the drop-out rate is even higher: 2000/01 - 4.7%, 2001/2002 - 4.2%, 2002/03

- 4.5%.” (Damyanovic & Fragoulis, 2004, p. 6)

Reasons for early school leaving and drop-out

The main reasons for school drop-out in Bulgaria are, according to the study by Loukanova:

| immigration;

| health problems;

| family reasons, and

| change of schools without reporting the change.

11

Besides these, other aspects are mentioned such as:

| reluctance of the parents to continue supporting their children’s education (Loukanova, 2000, p. 14).

Initiatives to tackle early school leaving and drop-out

“The steps undertaken by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy to address the drop-

out issue are legislative initiatives (Social Assistance Act) which include measures of the

Government for encouraging parents to send their children to school, etc. The approach

and measures adopted to avoid and overcome the negative aftermaths aim at eliminat-

ing or reducing the impact of the main reasons for the current situation, …” (Damyanovic

& Fragoulis, 2004, p. 6)

In addition, several different initiatives were started for teachers’ improvement and the

integration of Roma children.

Germany | Situation and data

According to a study of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany in 2006 and for the agegroup of 25-year-olds in particular, school statistics for Germany show that the number of school leavers (not counting vocational qualification schools) rose by 23 per cent (to

958,000) between 1992 and 2005. In 2005, 78,000 or 8 per cent of these 958,000 left

school without a Hauptschule leaving certificate. This ratio has not decreased compared

with 1992. Women are less represented in this group; their share fell slightly to 6 per

cent, while the share of men without a leaving certificate increased slightly (to 10.2 per

Young learners’ needs

cent). (Federal Statistical Office of Germany, 2006, p. 23)

12

Reasons for early school leaving and drop-out

Until now no educational authority has taken on the responsibility for combating this

problem. One of the few studies on this issue has identified the following factors relating to the problem of early school leavers and drop-outs: | excessive demands or lacking challenges;

| lack of social, linguistic or cultural integration of children; | lack of integration of particular children into the class; | lack of future prospects; | lack of motivation;

| family environment and problems.

Furthermore, the following reasons were also mentioned:

| stress in the family environment (e.g. parents’ problems, addiction, divorce); | fear of leaving the parents;

| fear of going to school with all its challenges and stresses; | bullying.

(Adamczyk et al., 2004) Strategies to tackle early school leaving and drop-out

As the responsibility for education lies with the individual countries, there is no uniform strategy to tackle the problem of early school leaving and drop-out.

But “[d]ue to the bad results of the PISA study, in which the average results for 15-year-

olds in Germany are well below the OECD average, the Kultusministerkonferenz (Stand-

ing Conference of the Ministers for Cultural Affairs) defined the following fields of action: | measures to improve language skills as early as the pre-school stage;

| measures for better links between the pre-school area and the primary schools with a view to earlier school enrolment;

| measures designed to improve primary education and continual improvement of reading competence and basic understanding of the interrelation between mathematical

and natural science;

| measures to actively encourage educationally disadvantaged children, especially children and young people with a migrant background;

| measures for subsequent quality development and assurance within classes and the school itself by making standards and a result-oriented evaluation obligatory;

| measures designed to improve the professionalism of teachers, especially with a view to diagnostic and methodical competencies as part of a systematic school develop-

ment;

| measures to extend school and extracurricular full-time offerings with the aim of providing extended education and encouragement possibilities, especially for scholars

with an education deficit and those with special capabilities. To support the Länder the government allocates 4 Mrd. within the capital spending programme ‘Zukunft Bildung

und Betreuung’ in the period 2004-2007 for the development and extension of fulltime schools.

These measures are also intended to reduce the number of early school leavers and increase the educational maturity of young people and the reduction of potential

restraints in vocational education and training.” (H. Gross, G. Hanf, U. Hippach-Schneider,

2004, p. 6)

Lithuania | Situation and data

“Statistical data shows that the percentage of young people leaving general second-

ary education early has not changed significantly. In the period from 1995 to 2001 this group constituted 1.3 per cent of the population, and 1 percent in 2000 to 2001.

13

However, the percentage of young people leaving vocational training with few or no recognised qualifications in the same period was much higher and growth can be noticed

in the number of early school leavers: in 1995-1996 they constituted 84 per cent and in

2000-2001 11.8 per cent. In order to reduce the number of young people leaving education or training without or with few recognised qualifications, legal, social and financial

measures have been initiated. One of those measures is the introduction of a strict control of obligatory secondary education and the devolution of the legal responsibility to the parents.” (Grollmann, Philipp & Ruth, 2004, p. 8 f.) Reasons for early school leaving and drop-out

The report claims ethnic minorities to be the most significant problem (ibid). Strategies to tackle early school leaving and drop-out

“In order to reduce the number of young people leaving education or training without or

with few recognised qualifications, legal, social and financial measures have been initiated. One of those measures is the introduction of a strict control of obligatory secondary education and the devolution of the legal responsibility to the parents.”

(Grollmann, Philipp & Ruth, 2004, p. 8 f.)

Especially for the 15-year-old drop-outs a “wide range of support for children from socially violated groups, including the provision of food, learning materials, temporary living

place, taking care of their free time, etc. is being planned.” (Grollmann et al., 2004, p. 9)

Poland | Situation and data

“The ‘early school leavers’ rate (percentage of 18-24-year-olds with at most lower secondary attainment levels who are not in education and training) is fairly low (7.6% in 2002

compared with 18.8% in the EU15 average or 8.4% for the new member states7). Poland

is currently meeting the EU objective set for 2010.” (Czesana & Matouskova, 2004, p. 8)

Young learners’ needs

Reasons for early school leaving and drop-out

The official report focuses only on problems with learners from an ethnic minority in Poland.

Strategies to tackle early school leaving and drop-out

“There is also a governmental organisation ‘Voluntary Labour Corps’ providing care for

young people at risk of unemployment and socio-pathological disorders (it acts under the supervision of the Ministry of Labour). A network of 303 centres provides support

towards social inclusion and prevention of drop-outs, and organises vocational training.

The programmes last two to three years and include young people over 15.” (Czesana & Matouskova, 2004, p. 8)

United Kingdom | Situation and data

No current data available at the date of printing. Strategies to tackle early school leaving and drop-out

Among others, there is the instrument of financial grants in UK education. According to

the Country Report for the UK, “[e]ducational Maintenance Awards are grants to 16 to 19

year olds from poorer backgrounds in the UK for participation in post-compulsory (not HE) courses. The aim is to encourage participation and reduce the need to earn (from

part-time employment), thus freeing time for study. Pilots have been successful, and the scheme was nationalised in 2004.” (Leney & May, 2004, p. 5)

14

European Outlook | Situation and data

It is very difficult to obtain sound statistical data for drop-out rates among very young

learners (age 14-16). However, the EUROSTAT service offers ‘numerical’ insight into the

next age group of early school leavers, i.e. persons aged 18-24.1) As the graph below indi-

cates, in the EU25 the rate of early school leavers decreased from 17.7 per cent in 2000 to

15.2 per cent in 2005 but is still considerably above the target of reducing this rate to no

more than 10 per cent (as set out in the Introduction). Malta (41.2%), Portugal (38%) and

Spain (30.8%) have the highest rates of early school leavers, while Poland (5.5%), Slovakia (5.8%) and the Czech Republic (8.4%) record the lowest rates of people leaving school

early. The next graph shows a considerably higher percentage of male than female early

school leavers.*

Graph 1: Early school leavers, EU25, 2005 (%). Source: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions 2007, p. 9

22

Female Male

20

Total

18 16 14 12 10 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

38,0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Strategies to tackle early school leaving and drop-out

European countries are following different routes with regard to actions addressing

2005

Female

41,2

Male 45

Graph 2: Early school leavers, EU25, 2005 (%). Source: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions 2007, p. 10

drop-out problems. In the progress report on achieving the Lisbon Agenda, four different

ways have been reported:

| Modularisation (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey).

| Establishing national qualification systems/frameworks (Czech Republic, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Slovenia, UK).

| Establishing competence-based programmes (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia).

* Note: Early school leavers: Percentage of the population aged 18-24 years with at most lower secondary education and not in further education or training. 2000, 2001: Estimated value; 2003: Break in series. Source: Eurostat, Structural indicators, 2006 in: Report about “Quality of work and employment 2006” of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions 2007: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2006/60/en/1/ef0660en.pdf, accessed 20 July 2007

15

| Increasing access to higher education (Austria, Finland, Germany, Liechtenstein, Portugal, Spain, Sweden). (Leney, 2004, p. 6)

In general, the European Union seems to regard the improvement of competencies as

one of the most important goals to improve the situation. “A paradigm change is taking

place in the objectives of training and approaches to the content and curriculum of VET.

The development of broad occupational competencies through workplace learning is

the key dimension of VET innovation. Transferable or key competencies provide another

way to define this approach. In both cases, the context in which the learning takes place

has an important bearing on the learning outcome.” (Leney, 2004, p. 13) And e-portfolios seem to be a useful instrument to provide evidence of such key competencies.

2.2 Theoretical background for supporting adolescent learners Adolescence can be defined as “the transitional stage of development between child-

hood and adulthood, representing the period of time during which a person experiences

a variety of biological changes and encounters a number of emotional issues. The ages

which are considered to be part of adolescence vary by culture, and range from preteens to nineteen years. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), adolescence

covers the period of life between 10 and 20 years of age. Adolescence is often divided

by psychologists into three distinct phases: early, mid and late adolescence.” (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_psychology, accessed 21 August 2007)

Traditionally, research in this field is linked to psychological development and family

studies. However, as the vast list of research themes shows, there are many overlaps with Clearly, it is not simply a matter of how capable you are; it is also a matter of how capable you believe you are.

Young learners’ needs

Pajares & Urdan, 2006, p. 343

other research disciplines, and projects in education and

electronic enhanced learning can in particular benefit from

those insights (Journal of Adolescent Research, http://jar. sagepub.com/ accessed 21-07-2007). Aiming at support-

ing young students – before they leave school – needs some

insight into this specific period of development from childhood to adulthood. In the

context of MOSEP, we are questioning how and in what way the e-portfolio concept can contribute to the competence development of young students. Therefore we analyse

theoretical findings about e-portfolios and:

| the concept of self-efficacy of young learners;

| the concept of self-organised/self-regulated learning, and

| the potential of e-portfolios to increase the motivation of students for learning. Developing self-esteem and self-efficacy of young learners

Modern psychologists are convinced that in different periods of life specific competencies are needed for successful functioning and that the beliefs about one’s personal

capabilities heavily influence the outcome, and also the learning results. This concept

of self-efficacy is defined as “the beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute

the courses of action required producing given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). More

specifically, self-efficacy is referred as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to meet the demands of a certain role or successfully carry out a certain activity. In short, perceived efficacy is

concerned not with the number of skills you have, but with what you believe you can do

with what you have under a variety of circumstances. Efficacy beliefs operate as a key

factor in a generative system of human competence. Hence, different people with similar

skills, or the same person under different circumstances, may perform poorly, adequately, or extraordinarily, depending on fluctuations in their beliefs of personal efficacy.” (Argy-

16

ropoulou & Sidiropoulou, 2003, p. 1) These psychological findings of adolescent research match the pedagogical concept of e-portfolios.

In educational development, Bandura (2006, p. 10) postulates three routes by which efficacy beliefs play a key role in cognitive development and accomplishment:

| students’ beliefs in their efficacy to regulate their learning activities and to master academic subjects;

| teachers’ beliefs in personal efficacy to motivate and promote learning in their students, and

| the faculties’ collective sense of efficacy that their schools can accomplish significant academic progress.

The environment in which students learn today offers many possibilities to acquire information, for example at libraries and very easily through the Internet. Learning environ-

ments and social software allow the learner to be active independently of time and place. However, this requires an active role by the student and, as Bandura states:

“This shift in locus of initiative involves a major reorientation in students’ conception

of education. They are agents of their own learning, not just recipients of information.

Adolescents need to commit themselves to goals that give them purpose and a sense

of accomplishment. Without personal commitment to something worth doing, they are

unmotivated, bored, or cynical. They become dependent on extrinsic sources of stimulation. A vision of a desired future helps to organize their lives, provides meaning to their

activities, motivates them, and enables them to tolerate the hassles of getting there.”

(2006, p. 10ff).

The e-portfolio concept takes these changes into consideration and offers the student

and the teacher possibilities to follow a competence-based, individual and personalised learning path.

People not only direct their learning by beliefs of personal efficacy, but also their pro-

fessional career. In vocational psychology, this is a well-known phenomenon. One of the most popular applications of self-efficacy theory is the study of career decision-making

self-efficacy (Betz, Klein & Taylor, 1994, cited in Argyropoulou, 2003, p. 2). Taylor and Betz

(1983) (based on Crites’ (1978) model of career choice competencies) provided a decision

framework, which defines the skills required in career decision-making: (1) goal selection,

(2) occupational information, (3) problem solving, (4) planning, and (5) self-appraisal.

Because self-efficacy theory is defined in relation to competence in specific behavioural

domains, career decision-making self-efficacy refers to the individual’s self-confidence in

successfully carrying out the mentioned activities. Thus, the conceptualisation and meas-

urement of career decision-making self-efficacy involves the integration of two major

theories, one originally stemming from clinical-social psychology and the other having its origins in counselling/vocational psychology (Argyropoulou, 2003, p. 2ff.).

As will be outlined in the next chapter in detail, teachers applying the e-portfolio

concept will support their students especially in developing competencies for selection

(choice making and planning).

Implications for teachers, parents or vocational career coaches deriving from the ado-

lescent research findings are manifold and almost all of them are relevant for qualified

e-portfolio guidance. In the following, we provide a non-exhaustive list of recommenda-

tions outlined by the adolescent researchers Pajares and Urdan (2006, pp. 343-364): | Emphasise skill development rather than self-enhancement | Ensure that students’ interpretations are adaptive | Engage in effective modelling practices | Select appropriate peer models

17

| Minimise the relative ability information publicly available | Tailor instruction to the student’s capabilities | Exercise care in grouping practices

| Careful the things you say, children will listen | Praise what is praiseworthy

| Help young people learn to “read” their feelings | Identify self-handicapping strategies

| Foster optimism and a positive outlook on life | Foster competence and confidence | Challenge under-confidence | Foster authenticity

| Make self-regulatory practices automatic and habitual | Set proximal rather than distal goals

| Provide instrumental rather than executive help. Becta (2007) looked at the issues of motivation and self-esteem in the use of e-portfolios

based on observation, usage statistics and reports from participants. They report that: “In the case of e-portfolio development, both engagement and motivation can be affected

by access to suitable technology. According to many teachers, the motivation to use the e-portfolio systems provided in each case is closely related to motivation to use ICT in

general.”

Becta goes on to say: “Teachers across case studies reported that particular groups,

such as students with special educational needs (SEN) and those at risk of exclusion, also

appeared to be more engaged than previously when working with the learning platform.” With regard to motivation, they found: “Where students see a connection with their current and future lives, motivation will be relatively high.”

In terms of self-esteem, Becta notes: “It is interesting to see that, although students tend

Young learners’ needs

to ‘understand their work better’ and are ‘pleased with’ their progress, for students other

than those in primary schools, using e-portfolios and online spaces does not, in the main,

help them to be more confident.” They believe: “This could be due to the extent of feed-

back and reflection that they have engaged in: more constructive feedback and reflection is more likely to enhance confidence.” The report states: “This points to an important role

for teachers and tutors in promoting the social, as well as the instrumental, outcomes of learning activity.”

Supporting self-organising skills and goal orientation with e-portfolios

Not only adolescent researchers postulate the development of self-efficacy and self-

organisation competencies. Teaching young students self-organising skills in addition

to classical subject-matter knowledge has been and is still viewed as one of the major

goals of education both internationally and nationally and across all educational sectors

(OECD Pisa, 2000; EU Lifelong Learning Programme, 2006). The objective is to support

learners in developing knowledge, skills and attitudes that enhance and facilitate their

future learning and which – abstracted from the original learning context – can be trans-

ferred to other learning situations. These skills are said to be vital and a prerequisite to

lifelong and lifewide learning in our rapidly changing information society. Young learn-

ers need special attention and methods of teaching and counselling. The notion of self-

organised learning, self-regulated, self-directed is deeply embedded in the pedagogical e-portfolio concept. It stems from the understanding that “students who self-regulate

their learning are engaged actively and constructively in a process of meaning genera-

18

tion and that they adapt their thoughts, feelings and actions as needed to affect their

learning and motivation” (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005, p. 201). A definition and principles of self-organised learning have been proposed by Harri-

Augstein and Thomas as an answer to society’s need to cope with constant change and flexibility. “Self-organ-

ised Learning is the conversational construction, recon-

struction and exchange of personal significant, relevant

and viable meanings with awareness and controlled

purposiveness” (1991, p. 27). The term “self-regulated

learning” is used to describe learning that is guided by

metacognition, strategic action (planning, monitoring

and evaluating personal progress against a standard),

and motivation to learn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Self-regulated_learning, accessed 20 May 2007)

Nowadays the e-portfolio concept can be subsumed as

an e-learning instrument, its purpose being:

| a personal, learning development concept and tool and/or

| an alternative instrument for assessing learning outcomes and processes (Häcker, 2006).

Among other approaches, e-portfolios are described as: | “selective and structured collections of information;

| gathered for specific purposes and showing/illustrating one’s accomplishments and growth, which are

| stored digitally and managed by appropriate software;

| developed using appropriate multimedia and usually within a web environment and

| retrieved from a website, or delivered by CD-ROM or by DVD.” (Challis, 2005; for other definitions, see Chapter 3)

E-portfolio as a concept and tool has the potential to benefit young learners in their transition period because of its support for the following pedagogical processes (Beetham,

2005, p. 5):

| summative assessment: demonstrating competence according to criteria set out within a programme of study or by an accrediting body;

| learning and ‘learning to learn’: enabling the learner to identify and reflect on their

strengths and weaknesses, making use of formative feedback, and enabling profes-

sionals to support learners in ways appropriate to their achievements and preferences,

by drawing on information in the profile;

| presentation: showcasing the learner’s best or most relevant achievements in the con-

text of a specific learning or career opportunity, for example on application to a university or during a professional development review;

| personal and professional development planning: supporting the general process of

reflection, self-evaluation and action planning for lifelong learning, including guidance on educational and/or career pathways.”

Graham Attwell (2005b) identifies seven different functions for an e-portfolio, all of which can be mapped against different pedagogical processes. Recognising learning

The first is recognising learning, which is not as simple a task as might at first be assumed:

19

Within the formal education system, learning has been associated with achievement.

Although it could be said that all learning is an achievement, it does not follow that the formal education system has recognised it as such. Furthermore, the formal school cur-

riculum has tended to focus on summative assessment in the form of examinations. All too often learners are unclear what it is they ‘should’ be trying to do and to learn. Yet,

this is critical to their ability to recognise that they have learnt. Learners frequently lack

the skills to recognise their own learning, especially ongoing learning that does not necessarily lead to formal outcomes.

Recording learning

The second key function is recording learning:

What should be recorded in a portfolio? An e-portfolio will contain records of formal

achievements but, possibly more important, ongoing learning from home and work as

well as formal education and training. Peer group interaction may be the most powerful means of recording non-formal learning. E-portfolios should allow individuals to build

and present a profile or picture of themselves and should allow people to record their learning and achievement from the home, from school or college and from work.

In terms of recording learning, be it formal or informal, the issue of who the audience

for the portfolio is is vital. Elizabeth Hebert (1998) says, “Defining an audience is crucial.

The notion of gathering work to ‘tell your story’ is far too abstract for young students

unless they know who is listening to that story. The question of the content of a portfolio becomes much clearer once an audience is defined. For our students, the parents were the most natural audience. Other audiences could be siblings, other students from the same

or different grade levels, prior teachers in the school, or senior citizens in the community.” Time is also important. Learners need to know when and how often they should

update the portfolio. Knowing who the portfolio is for and when it should be updated

are precursors for learners planning and taking responsibility for the other processes and in particular for deciding what should be recorded in a portfolio.

Young learners’ needs

Reflecting on learning

The third key process is reflecting on learning, perhaps the most important part of the learning process:

In terms of e-portfolios it is probably the least developed. Reflection has generally

been seen as a process of commentary by the subject on any aspect of him- or herself

(Wilson, 2005). The commentary may be private, shared or public. Examples include journals and more recently weblogs.

The issue of supporting and ‘scaffolding’ reflection will be considered in some depth in

a later section of this publication. Validating learning

The fourth key function is validating learning:

Validating is the process of proving – to oneself and to others – that learning has taken place, including the abilities and competencies identified and recorded (Wilson, 2005).

Validation takes place through evidencing and verification. Evidence is provided by the

learner to attest to their own achievement and may be in different forms and media – for

instance, a picture of a chair they have made or the url of a website they have designed.

Verification is externally sourced evidence of claimed achievement – for example, a letter from a team leader verifying performance during a work placement.

Validation is not the same as assessing and accrediting. Validation is referenced

against the abilities and competencies identified by the learner – not those of an external occupational profile or qualification.

20

Video and other multimedia artefacts may be valuable in enabling validation without the need for additional, external verification. Presenting learning

The fifth process is presenting learning:

Presenting offers an opportunity to select artefacts from the portfolio to tell a story or make a point. Presentation involves the processes of structuring, visualising, narrating

and re-purposing (Wilson, 2005). Presenting is the bridge between validation and assessment but it is only one of the possible purposes of presentation. Other purposes include presenting learning for a job application or application for a European-funded project!

e-portfolios should allow individuals to present their learning for different purposes and

should be owned by the learner and independent of institutions.

Planning learning

The sixth process is planning learning:

Planning is a structured form of reflection – looking back and looking forward. What have I achieved and what do I want to achieve?

Assessing learning

The seventh process is assessing learning:

Assessing is an external process, not within the control of the learner. Assessing is external judgement of the value of a set of artefacts presented by the learner. Impact of the ‘e’ on the pedagogical e-portfolio process

‘New’ for educationalists nowadays is the use of technology and digital media, web-publishing tools and/or LMS/CMS systems for introducing the e-portfolio concept institu-

tion-wide or in class. Barrett (2005) highlights the fact that new technology differs

from paper-based portfolio work especially as it allows new ways of archiving, linking/ thinking, storytelling, collaborating and publishing. An electronic/digital portfolio sys-

tem offers the advantage of archiving different e-portfolio artefacts (e.g. assignments,

courses, certificates, grades, project results, research papers etc.), publishing them using

web technologies and sharing them with others by means of collaboration tools or other social software, e.g. wikis/weblogs. The literature has identified the following advantages of technology-enhanced e-portfolio work. IT support allows:

21

| integration of a huge amount of digital artefacts addressing different senses through the use of different media formats (e.g. text, pictures, sound, video, animation);

| very flexible display of artefacts, adjusting them to different contexts and re-using them for different purposes;

| chronological documentation and presentation of a learner’s biography;

| initiation of learning processes in groups using web-based collaboration tools;

| intensive participation and transparency in the reflection process (see Barrett, 2005; Schaffert, Hornung-Prähauser, Hilzensauer & Wieden-Bischof, 2007).

The provision of suitable e-portfolio software for young learners gives them an instru-

ment with which they can handle their learning strategies and planning on their own. Whether paper or IT-based, the e-portfolio concept and tools have the potential to

support young learners on their way to developing self-organising and self-regulated

learning skills. As Weinert says: “Self-learning is heavily dependent on the readiness of

individuals to define their own goals, to be proactive, to interpret success and failure

appropriately, to translate wishes into intentions and plans, and to shield learning from competing intentions.” (Weinert, 1994)

Motivating young students to learn with e-portfolios

It is argued that we all have different styles of learning and approach learning in differ-

ent ways. Although this would seem self-evident, attempts to theorise and classify such

learning styles are less than convincing. Notwithstanding the problems of the theoretical debate on learning styles, it would appear likely that learners will have preferences

for different pedagogical approaches and learning strategies, in particular learning con-

texts. E-portfolios can allow learners to configure and develop the learning environment to suit and enable their own approach to learning. This can have a significant effect on student motivation.

“Students who have the freedom to choose different strategies and approaches may

become more engaged in the learning process, and these students will be more likely to

Young learners’ needs

approach other problems with an open mind. In addition, students who are involved in

creating the project assignment or the project checklist gain valuable experience in set-

ting their own goals and standards of excellence. This gives students a sense of ownership and control over their own learning.” (ALTEC, 2007)

Karen Barton, Patricia McKellar and Paul Maharg point to the importance of authentic-

ity in learning and in motivation. (Barton, McKellar & Maharg, 2005)

“The context for their work is law education but the ideas in the paper apply to any

sphere of learning. They quote Barab, Squire & Dueber (2000) who say authenticity lies

‘not in the learner, the task or the environment, but in the dynamic interactions among these various components [ …] authenticity is manifest in the flow itself, and is not an objective feature of any one component in isolation’.” (Attwell, 2007b)

They go on to describe the environment they have designed for providing simulations

of legal practice: They suggest that, if we create flexible, sensitive software instruments

by which students can express themselves and carry out task-based learning, then we

become involved in creating an environment where students can begin to comprehend

through active learning the complexity of a professional legal task or transaction. E-port-

folios can provide an environment for collaboration and reflection on authentic taskbased learning.

Evidence that the introduction of e-portfolios can improve motivation:

The London Borough of Southwark is providing e-portfolios as part of a work-based

learning programme. They have 500 students involved with 14 different providers. They

22

claim that student retention rates have increased by 10 per cent and the number of

those not involved in education or training (NEET) has fallen by 12 per cent.

Crewe College in the UK have introduced e-portfolios for a group of young people 14-

16 years old, who are undertaking a level 1 course in motor vehicle maintenance and

repair (Attwell & Brandsma, 2006). The e-portfolio records work undertaken on a kit car

project, developed as enrichment for the course and not contributing to the qualification.

Whereas motivation was previously a major problem, they say the students now have to

be ‘sent away’ from the project. They are using breaks or after-class hours to work on the kit car and complete logbooks in the PebblePad e-portfolio system. Students have taken on all the publicity work for the project and are even finding sponsors from local enter-

prises.

The Becta survey (2007a) found that “primary students were very enthusiastic about

using the school website for storing, collaborating on and presenting their work. Generally, they found it ‘fun’, and agreed that they became more interested in their work.

Among FE and secondary students ( …) although fewer than half found it fun, or that it

made them more interested in their work, more than half indicated that they would like to use an e-portfolio in future.”

Of course, it could be argued that the increased motivation comes from authentic

work-based learning, rather than through the e-portfolio. However, it is the consistent

argument in this paper that the introduction of e-portfolios is intrinsically linked to pedagogic innovation and student-centred learning.

The importance of e-portfolio design for motivating students

“I work with metal and wood. I have many tools that I have acquired over the years, some I have bought, some I

have been given, some I have found. I know what tools I have and know what they can do. I have hand tools and many power tools. I can create things by using my tools, I can solve problems by using my tools. Each time I use my tools I derive enjoyment and learn something about the tool and the materials that I work with. The tools

I have been given or have found for ‘free’ I value if they do the job and are easy to use. No matter how sophisti-

cated a tool is I will only use it if it is easy to use – like the majority of the planet I dislike having to use manuals! I want an easy/intuitive user interface. – the students I teach have similar attitudes in terms of selecting and using ICT tools – I am sure that this attitude/approach is not unique to Wolsingham students.

“The only time that I do not enjoy using my tools is when I have to use them to solve a problem when I would

rather be doing something else. What am I rambling about? two things – using the appropriate tools for the job and motivating students. The e-portfolio tools that students will use will be those that are easy for them to use

and that will let them use the media and communications methods that they are using in their everyday (out of school?) lives. The tool must motivate the student. The tool must have an interface and features that motivate the students, it must have something that makes them want to use the tool for their own enjoyment. – That

is before they even think about the ‘reason’ that they are creating the portfolio. Not really brain surgery; if the portfolio creation tool is not something they want to/find easy to use, they will not use it. – the e-portfolio implementation will be handicapped from day one if we do not have the right tools!

“The arguments for portability/interoperability have been won – as have the arguments to ‘design’ integrated ‘systems’ and avoid the ‘Topsy’ just grew systems – however, we must be very careful not to ‘straight jacket’

the process in order to satisfy perfectly admirable design principles. We must somehow capitalise on whatever motivates and makes the students want to compile e-portfolios and at the same time justify/explain/make

clear the reasons why/benefits of maintaining an e-portfolio – and of course the more difficult, but crucial bit, obtain curriculum buy-in and integrate the e-portfolio process into learning practice.”

John Pallister, Wolsingham School & Community College, UK

23

Barriers to motivation

This section has focused on the potential benefits of e-portfolios and some of the underpinning drivers for their development and adoption. But there are also dangers.

In an extensive literature review, Pamela Butler (2006) cites Tosh, Light, Fleming and

Haywood (2005) who, she says, “provide a timely warning of the problems that can be

encountered in electronic portfolio implementation if the needs and attitudes of student

users are not taken into consideration.” Their research shows that addressing issues of

buy-in, motivation, assessment and electronic portfolio technology can increase student engagement with portfolios. To improve student buy-in, the way electronic portfolios

are promoted is extremely important. Students need to see good examples of electronic portfolios, understand their benefits, and know how they will help students to develop

as learners and ultimately gain employment. Students are motivated to work on their portfolios when they can see what they will get out of the experience. Knowing how

the electronic portfolio will be assessed is also important, yet it cannot be seen as ‘just

another assignment’, or students will focus on meeting the assessment criteria to the

detriment of thinking critically about their learning journey. As Tosh et al. argue, “clear

rubrics and scaffolding for students on how to reflect so that they internalize the benefits of reflective practice are clearly needed if this approach to learning is going to be embraced by most learners”. (Butler, 2006, p. 13) Finally, Tosh et al. document the con-

cerns the students in their study had over the electronic portfolio technology they were

using. “Many students had problems with the software, complaining it was anything

from too complicated to lacking in functionality. Students lamented the time taken

to learn the software, and to customise it to their needs. They also had concerns over the privacy of their material in a web-based platform, and wanted control over what

was publicly accessible and what was private. An electronic portfolio system needs to be extremely flexible so that it can be adapted to fit students’ levels of technical skill,

Young learners’ needs

improvements in their skills and confidence over time[ …]”. (Butler, 2006, p. 13)

24

2.3 Experiences from e-portfolio pilot projects with young learners The summary is based on 19 best-practice examples demonstrating exploitation of e-

portfolios in teaching practice throughout educational institutions worldwide, with special focus on European cases. (A detailed list of screened best-practice examples during

the MOSEP project is given in the Annex.) The research focused on different aspects of

e-portfolios in order to elicit key success factors as well as potential barriers to develop-

ment and implementation of e-portfolio systems in different educational settings. As

MOSEP addresses the growing problem of adolescents (aged 14 to 16) dropping out of

the formal education system around Europe, the research focused in particular on e-port-

folios introduced for young learners in the transition phase. Introduction of portfolio and background

In general, most e-portfolio stories date from 2004 and 2005 onwards. The earliest

implementation was noted by Notschool (UK) in the year 2000 but most of the projects

are early developments launched a few years ago and, in most cases, are still not beyond the initial deployment phase.

The portfolio concept and tools were introduced mainly as:

| internal school procedures or initiatives targeted at students from a particular school in order to support them on entering the labour market or further education;

| local or regional initiatives that involve remote students and teachers in the idea of portfolios;

| externally funded projects (mainly EU funding) which experiment with portfolios and

prepare a pilot phase of the developments. In new Member States these projects often go hand in hand with significant investments in IT infrastructure.

In the majority of cases the target group consisted of young students aged 11-18. Some

projects are targeted at students as part of their career development during their stud-

ies. A few projects also focus on adult learners as part of lifelong learning programmes.

The initiatives differ in terms of educational settings and context and the socio-economic status of the target group. Also, the rationale behind the e-portfolio introduction var-

ies from e-portfolios that support gifted and talented students (Wollerau, Switzerland)

through vocational school support for students in the automotive industry (Crewe,

United Kingdom) to a community of students permanently or temporarily excluded from school (Notschool, UK). Despite these factors the main aim remains the same: to stimulate self-directed learning, to document interests and learning and assist in planning

individual learning paths. Critical success factors

From the perspective of an educational institution:

| There must be a clear reason for implementing e-portfolios, understood and accepted by teachers and students within the organisation. Otherwise it is very unlikely that they would devote time and efforts to start and continue with e-portfolios.

| School programmes and curricula need to be revised in order to integrate the e-portfolio with the learning process so that it covers many aspects of learners’ activities.

E-portfolio development must encompass the whole learning experience and be perceived as the basis for lifelong learning.

| The approach to the learners is also crucial. It is important to instruct them on the

process, guiding them through collection, reflection and development of the artefacts.

Also, it is crucial to give learners as much freedom as possible in terms of tools or structure so that the e-portfolio is perceived as their own, personal learning strategy.

25

| It is also important to ensure there is additional time and money available for courses and programmes to facilitate teachers’ continuous learning with regard to e-portfolio tools and methodologies.

| Collaboration or support from businesses is important in terms of external expertise

and increased motivation. It will help learners to understand the e-portfolio perspective and demonstrate their skills in the real labour market.

| There is also a choice of technological solution to be decided upon. Such factors as

costs of installation and administration of a system, reliability, support of different

formats, portability or ease of use must also be considered within each institution. From the perspective of teachers, trainers and vocational counsellors:

| The skills and competencies of the teaching staff in terms of ICT and pedagogical

process must be acknowledged so that the e-portfolio development is cost- and timeeffective.

| It seems that the role of a teacher is pivotal for the whole process of portfolio development. Guiding and coaching of the students seems to be crucial in all cases.

| Teachers’ competencies must be enhanced in order to assess and evaluate the portfolios and make use of their potential (e.g. during interviews).

Skills and competencies

“Tutors need to be familiar not only with e-portfolio processes and tools but they also play a key role in moti-

vating the students to reflect on their learning and skills. ( …) Tutors need to develop materials and activities to lead to e-portfolios rather than introduce the e-portfolio as an activity on its own.”

Tutor from C2E Project, 2nd Chance School, France

Challenges for teachers

“It is the role of a tutor to propose a structure or scaffolding for this development process. It is obvious that

there is an initial need to restore the learner’s ‘self-image’ and it is the tutor’s role to achieve this whilst accom-

Young learners’ needs

panying the learner in his e-portfolio ( …). The tutor needs to be flexible enough to adapt continually to new situations and scenarios that might arise.”

Tutor from C2E Project, 2nd Chance School, France

“Teaching staff must adapt to working with smaller groups, teachers can no longer rely on up-front traditional

teaching in which they are the ones that talk and transmit knowledge. They have to get used to a more personalized way of teaching.” (Tutor from Dudley Project, Leasowes Community College, UK)

“The main role of a tutor was to accompany the students in reflecting on their own learning and skills as well as their professional practice gained during their work placement. The tutors had a key role in motivating the students to record and reflect on their progress. ”

26

Tutor from C2E Project, 2nd Chance School, France

3

The pedagogical e-portfolio concept in schools

27

3 The pedagogical e-portfolio concept in schools This chapter outlines the pedagogical background of the – currently IT-based – pedagogical portfolio concept:

Section 3.1 provides commonly used definitions and summarises different purposes

and expectations related to the introduction of e-portfolios in the educational context.

Section 3.2 describes the expectations of a typical e-portfolio process. Section 3.3 deals with the role of educational technologies in the e-portfolio process(es). Section 3.4 discusses critical issues faced by teachers when introducing e-portfolios for the first time

(assessment of student achievement; ownership and control of e-portfolios, content and

Pedagogical concept

curriculum, provision of e-portfolio infrastructure).

3.1 Background to the e-portfolio concept and tools What is an e-portfolio?

The confusion with e-portfolios derives from different definitions and purposes. In the following we will provide an overview of different definitions.

“A portfolio is often defined as a purposeful collection of student (or teacher) work that

illustrates efforts, progress, and achievement in one or more areas over time. An elec-

tronic portfolio uses digital technologies, allowing the portfolio developer to collect and organize portfolio artifacts in many media types (audio, video, graphics, text). A stand-

ards-based portfolio uses a database or hypertext links to clearly show the relationship between standards or goals, artifacts, and reflections. The learner’s reflections are the

rationale that specific artifacts are evidence of achieving the stated standards or goals.

An electronic portfolio is a reflective tool that demonstrates growth over time.” (Helen Barrett , 2004; 2005).

Scott Wilson has added his definition:

An e-portfolio “is a repository of information about a particular learner provided by the learner and by other people and organisations, including products in a range of media

28

that the learner has created or helped to create alongside formal documents from

authoritative sources, such as transcripts of assessed achievement, which the learner has chosen to retain.” (Wilson, 2005)

And, reflecting a more technical direction, in contributing to standards development,

Cambridge (2003) defines an e-portfolio as:

| “what is produced when persons collect, select, reflectively interpret, and/or present their own evidence to support their assertions about what they have learned, know

and can or should do;

| a selection of ‘products’ of learning, reflections or interpretations on those products,

and representations of relationships between and among the products and interpretations. These relationships may need to be verifiable with some third-party authority

and be non-revocable;

| for our purposes, the set of products, interpretations, and relationships presented to

a particular audience. Multiple e-portfolios may be constructed using the same data within an e-portfolio system.” (Cambridge, 2003)

From paper to digital technologies

The idea of portfolio-based learning is not new. Indeed, portfolio concepts have been

mainstreamed in art education in most countries for a considerable period of time. Fur-

thermore, in many vocational and practical subjects there is a long tradition of producing

and demonstrating artefacts developed through participation in a learning programme.

Those artefacts may contribute to learner assessment to a greater or lesser degree. It

could also be argued that a CV is to a large extent a portfolio, providing a profile of the

individual together with an account of achievement and experience and in many cases

some evidence of that achievement. Similarly, it is common practice for academic staff to

keep a record of their publications.

It could then be said that the development of e-portfolios is merely the utilisation of

digital technologies for the recording, storing and retrieval of such artefacts. The different purposes of an e-portfolio

To some extent the definition of an e-portfolio depends on the particular use to which

the portfolio might be put. Here there are important differences of emphasis between

the uses of e-portfolios It is possible to distinguish between three broad approaches: the

use of e-portfolios as an assessment tool, the use of e-portfolios as a tool for professional or career development planning (CDP), and a wider understanding of e-portfolios as a

tool for active learning. These differences will be explored in some depth in this report. For example, in the UK, e-portfolios have come to be seen as a vehicle for personal

development planning (PDP). “The term portfolio, as used in the UK, generally describes

a collection (or archive) of reflective writing and associated evidence, which documents learning and which a learner may draw upon to present her/his learning and achieve-

ments.” (Ward & Richardson) A portfolio therefore encompasses the concept of personal development records (PDRs), including records that may contribute to the HE Progress

File (Dearing, 1997), and extends beyond that to incorporate artefacts that may reflect

claims made in PDRs. It may also include a range of tools, for example diagnostic tools,

and links to material and resources that help the learner to develop the skills required to create the artefacts.

However, despite these different emphases, there is a general agreement that an e-

portfolio should allow learners to record and reflect on achievement and facilitate presentations of learning. The developers of the popular proprietary e-portfolio software

‘PebblePad’ say that an e-portfolio is “a personal repository, a personal journal, a feedback and collaboration system … populated completely by the creators, who can, in any of

29

their learning identities, selectively record any abilities, events, plans or thoughts that are

personally significant.” (Becta, 2007)

e-portfolios as a pedagogical process

Given such trends, it may be more appropriate to define e-portfolios as a process, rather than just a product or a technological system.

A recently published report of a survey into e-portfolio development and implementa-

tion by the British Educational Technology Association (Becta, 2007a) says participants

generally saw learning as a process of growth. In a typical comment, one primary teacher

said: “It’s about having a better understanding of the world in all its shapes and forms. It’s about being more compassionate, it’s about taking into account different people’s

needs. And it allows them to do all of that, you know, they’re going home and they’re

showing what somebody else has done in school: ‘I worked with this person on … and we

made this together. And that’s what learning’s about, it’s about just growing.’”

In a video interview Roger Ellen (undated) sees e-portfolios as an “approach to stu-

dents and an approach to learning – a way to involve students in their own learning, to

give students the key, to give students the language of learning – what they learn and

how they learn – it is an empowerment strategy.” Children growing up today, he says,

spend 17 to 18 years in school. “We need to give them the strength to learn – they must

be deeply involved in their own learning.” Ellen refers to the ‘3Ps’ of portfolios: | Product | Process

| Progression To this we would add a fourth ‘P’, that of pedagogy. E-portfolios may be best seen as a pedagogical process – as an approach to teaching and learning. It is the pedagogical

approach that provides the main focus for this report. In viewing e-portfolios as a peda-

gogical process, we will examine what competencies are required by learners to develop

Pedagogical concept

an e-portfolio and what competencies are required of teachers and trainers and others supporting the development of e-portfolios in order to support learners.

The e-portfolio process encourages the learner to review and reflect on what they have done, made, experienced or learnt. They are encouraged to record their reflections in

their e-portfolio and share them with others. This gives value to reflection and requires

reflection to be explicit and more visible. This in turn might result in the learner deriving more benefit from the reflection stage, previously something of an invisible proc-

ess. The e-portfolio process informs and supports the planning process. The learner uses

their reflections to plan what it is that they must do to move forward, to learn some-

thing, to achieve something, to produce something etc. It simply adds the Record stage to the Plan, Do, Review cycle. The Record stage is very important in that it can make the

reflection more ‘explicit’ which in turn enables and encourages the learner to share their reflections with others. The sharing process might help the learner to take more from

the learning experience, but more importantly if a learner has to spend time preparing

their thinking so that they can share it with others they might engage in ‘deeper’ think-

ing as they try to make sense out of their experiences and fit it into their existing thinking, memories, structures etc, hopefully enabling them to take more out of the learning experience. The different stages of the learning process (derived from Kolb’s learning

cycle) can be combined with the e-portfolio processes. When doing so, a new conceptual

model of learning with e-portfolios can be drawn like this:

30

The e-portfolio Process in the Learning Loop

The e-portfolio process in the Learning Loop Gain experience by engaging activities

Plan what you need to do

Experiment with strategies

Share and present evidence

Check and share your plan

e-portfolio

Select and link evidence

Review and reflect on what you have done

Develop strategies to overcome the problem

Encounter problems

DO IT!

Record evidence of what you have done or learnt

The e-portfolio Process

Recognise the need for learning

3.2 Expectations related to the introduction of e-portfolios This section will look at the different pressures and movements that underpin the development and implementation of e-portfolios. Thus the development of e-portfolios can

be seen as a response to different pressures on the education and training systems; at the same time the implementation of e-portfolios influences the organisational and

pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning. Improving learning

The reasons for introducing e-portfolios are numerous and varied. Drivers for change may be extrinsic or intrinsic. In some cases e-portfolios have been introduced due to government or examination board pressures. In others it is as a result of funding being made

available for innovation and development. Sometimes it is as an attempt to improve the

motivation of learners, in other cases to encourage learners to explore their own competence and achievement. In many cases it is because of the desire by teachers and educators to provide a more fulfilling learning experience. Furthermore, we would stress that the introduction of e-portfolios is a process. On their own, e-portfolios are not such a

radical change. However, the development of e-portfolios can begin to open up new possibilities for learning.

Elizabeth Hebert, the principal of Crow Island School, Winnetka, Illinois, has written a

compelling account of the first ten years of developing e-portfolios in her school (1998).

“When we started this project, we didn’t fully understand the possibilities that portfolios could offer. The notion that there could be some child-centered, qualitative supplement

31

to the single-number characterizations of learning emphasized by our testing culture seemed reason enough to organize our efforts and those of our students. The idea of

collecting more substantive evidence of our curriculum and teaching initiatives to coun-

teract narrowly defined test scores seemed innovative at the time. What we didn’t know then was that the process of selecting samples of one’s own work and assembling them into a portfolio is profoundly important to children. We also learned that all children

have a natural ability and desire to tell their story through the contents of the portfo-

lio. Even now, we remain excited about capturing the individual voices of our students

through portfolio collections.” Supporting lifelong learning

One of the major pressures behind the development of e-portfolios is facilitating lifelong learning. Lifelong learning is hardly a new idea. Arguably, the idea of lifelong learning

was originally rooted in the workers’ movement. In the UK, the Mechanics Institutes, the

Miners Halls and organisations like the Workers Educational Association organised classes and courses for workers to improve their own education, knowledge and skills as well

as providing access to learning resources and social activities. Whilst this provision might aim at developing technical and labour market related skills and knowledge, it was

guided by a wider belief in the power of education for emancipation. The more recent

focus on lifelong learning, in, say, the last thirty years, has been guided by far narrower

discourses. Driven by a shorter product life-cycle, the increasing speed of adoption and

“Use e-portfolios for the recognition and validation of non formal learning.”

Graham Attwell, Pontydysgu, UK

implementation of new technologies in the workplace and the increas-

ing instability of employment with the computer-driven information revolution, it was reasoned that workers would need continuous learning

throughout their work-life to update their occupational skills and knowledge or to learn new occupational competencies. It was contestable as

to who would be responsible for this. Whilst previously continuing vocational training

had been the responsibility of employers, and the state was seen as playing a leading

role in the provision of continuing education and training, it was now often argued that individuals were responsible for maintaining their own employability, albeit sometimes

Pedagogical concept

with the assistance of grants, vouchers and subsidised courses.

But if ongoing learning was the responsibility of the individual, rather than company

personnel or Human Resource Departments, there needed to be some way for individu-

als to record and present their learning achievements and competencies, beyond formal course certification. At the same time employers have been increasingly discontented

with formal qualifications alone as the basis for hiring new staff (Attwell, 2007).

They require something that says what a worker can do as well as what exams they

have passed. Whilst vocational courses provide a reasonable indicator of skills and com-

petencies, they still fail to record how someone has used those competencies after initial training and what new competencies have been gained in that process.

And whilst continuous lifelong learning may be a policy aspiration rather than a reality

for most people, for many learning is now increasingly multi-episodic, with individuals

undertaking occasional periods of formal education and training throughout their working life.

The idea of the e-portfolio recognises that learning is continuing and seeks to provide

tools to support that learning. It also recognises the role of the individual in organising

his or her own learning.

Recording learner progress

For continuing education and training, many programmes may be unaccredited, i.e. not leading to a formal certificate of outcomes. This includes courses provided by suppliers,

32

short training programmes, courses in adult education or courses provided to enhance

formal programmes. In the UK the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has been working to establish a way of recognising and recording the progress and achievement of learners

who are on non-accredited courses – that is, courses that do not lead to a qualification

(Becta, 2007b).

From 2006, all organisations who deliver non-accredited learning will be required to

demonstrate how they have adopted a new ‘staged process’ for recording and evaluating

learner progress called RARPA: Recognising and Recording Progress and Achievement in

Non-Accredited Learning.

Becta say, “Although the acronym is new, this five stage process is not something that

will be new to adult tutors. It is a logical process that incorporates practices that many

tutors already use in their teaching and learning. This time technology is being used to support that process.

The five-stage process comprises of:

1. aims that are appropriate to an individual learner or groups of learners;

2. an initial assessment to establish the learner’s starting point; 3. appropriately challenging learning objectives;

4. ongoing recognition and recording of progress and achievement during the learning session or course (formative assessment);

5. end of session or course learner self-assessment; tutor summative assessment; review of overall progress and achievement.

The staged process has been designed to:

| focus on and promote the needs and interests of learners;

| take account of learners’ diverse and sometimes multiple purposes in learning; | allow for negotiation of the content and outcomes of learning programmes;

| encourage learners to reflect on and recognise their own progress and achievement, thus increasing their confidence;

| promote and support informed learner self-assessment, peer assessment and dialogue, about learning and achievement between learners and tutors/trainers;

| enable both the achievement of planned learning objectives and learning outcomes not specified at the outset to be recognised and valued;

| promote good practice in teaching, learning and assessment;

| enhance providers’ quality assurance and improvement practices.” (Becta, 2007b) Informal learning

The UK initiative seeks to provide recognition of non-accredited programmes. However, it does not account for informal learning. Informal learning is something of a conun-

drum. Fairly obviously, we learn throughout our lives, in all kinds of different setting and

contexts. Most of this learning does not come from formal educational programmes. Jay

Cross (2006) argues that formal training and workshops only account for 10-20 per cent

of what people learn at work, and that 80-90 per cent of our learning takes place outside

formal settings. Yet there has been little attention paid to informal learning or to how

it takes place. Jay Cross goes on to say: “Most corporations over-invest in formal training

while leaving the more natural, simple ways we learn to chance.”

In most European countries there have been some moves to recognise informal learn-

ing. However, most effort has been expended on trying to assess and certify informal

learning (whether it then remains informal is a moot point, as is whether most people

wish their informal learning to be certified).

There is growing interest in informal learning from the corporate world, driven by the

desire to capitalise on the intellectual assets of the workforce, to manage organisational

33

knowledge and in recognition that informal learning may prove a cost-effective way of developing competence.

At IBM, Yael Ravin has developed two models of informal learning:

“The first model is Enabled Learning. In this model a person has a specific, immediate,

learning need. For example they need to brush up on a new product or learn more about

an industry trend in preparation for a customer visit the next day. There is no time to

take a course. In this case, Enabled Learning can provide a short guiding experience, tai-

lored to the specific need, available immediately, within the context of work. This can be

a ‘mini-course’ assembled dynamically in response to the person’s query or a short collaborative session enabled by locating a relevant human expert.

“The second model is Embedded Learning. In this model learning is intimately embed-

ded in the work process itself. For example a person is about to execute the next step in

a workflow application. If they are not sure how to proceed, modular learning about this specific step is invoked to bring the person up to speed quickly. Or a chat with a human expert who can guide the user can also be initiated. In this case Embedded Learning

allows the user to accomplish their work by providing learning at the moment of task execution.” (Ravin, 2005)

Ravin goes on to say: “Our challenge is to develop tools, technologies, and methodolo-

gies to facilitate both enabled and embedded learning.” (ibid)

In terms of educational technology, there has been little attention paid to informal

learning. Indeed, it is remarkable that formal learning technology and applications have only really been made available to those enrolled on an educational programme or to

those working for larger enterprises.

E-portfolios can extend access to educational technology to everyone who wishes to

organise their own learning. In Wales, the Careers Service offers a web-based e-portfolio

to all residents. Furthermore, the e-portfolio can include and bring together all learning, including informal learning, workplace learning, learning from the home, learning driven by problem solving and learning motivated by personal interest as well as learning

Pedagogical concept

through engagement in formal educational programmes. Competence development and assessment

One of the major promises of e-portfolios is to recognise, record and bring together the

outcomes of learning from formal learning programmes, non-formal provision and from

informal learning. An e-portfolio can record and support learning taking place in different contexts, including work-based learning and incidental learning taking place as a

result of personal interest. To fully utilise such a development requires new understandings of qualification that go beyond satisfactory completion of a course or learning programme. In this respect, an important development in education in the past period has

been the translation of qualifications into outcomes and competencies.

Sebastian Fiedler and Barbara Kieslinger (2006) point out: “It is important to note that

the concept of competence is a theoretical construct that refers to a human potentiality

for action or its underlying dispositions. Theoretical constructs of this kind can be, and

indeed are, used for a variety of descriptive and/or explanatory purposes. This variabil-

ity is clearly reflected in the current literature on competencies and its apparent lack of coherence and precision.”

They go on to say: “Like the more traditional concept of ability, competence conceptual-

izations are generally referring to an individual’s potentiality for action in a range of challenging situations. It is thus a concept that foremost indicates a precondition for future

problem solving and coping (including the use of adequate tools) in a particular area of

action [ …]. This is where the old notion of qualification that is based on requirements

34

analysis oriented in the past and on the acquisition and performance of standardized procedural skills and factual knowledge clearly shows its limits.”

Whatever the different understanding of competence, from the point of view of the

e-portfolio the importance lies in the separation of the outcomes which form a qualifica-

tion from the learning programme which develops competence for such outcomes. This

means that learners are no longer necessarily locked in to a particular course in order to

gain a qualification but are able to present their learning to prove they possess such com-

petencies or are able to achieve those outcomes. This means that learners could select

evidence and artefacts from the e-portfolio for presentation for qualification purposes.

3.3 The role of using educational technologies for e-portfolios Barrett and Knezek (2003) argue that electronic portfolios should be electronic versions of paper portfolios. The same thinking about purpose, pedagogy and assessment, they

say, lies behind both kinds of portfolio. We do not agree with this argument. Whilst the same thinking about purpose may underpin an e-portfolio, we believe that new tech-

nologies provide opportunities for new types of portfolio, or more accurately, for different pedagogic approaches to portfolio development and to different and more flexible uses

of portfolios. In this section we will look at three developments in technology that are of

particular significance for the development of e-portfolios – ubiquitous computing, the

development of social software and the increasing capability and usability of multimedia.

Ubiquitous computing

The term ‘ubiquitous computing’ refers to two technological developments. The first is the increasingly ubiquitous nature of Internet connectivity with the development of

35

wireless and GSM networks, as well as the spread of broadband, resulting in connectivity becoming available almost everywhere in the future. It is also expected that devices will

be able to search for, and seamlessly switch to utilise, available networks. The second and

associated use of the term is for the many different devices now able to access the Internet, including mobile communication devices such as PDAs but also household appli-

ances and industrial and electronic tools and machinery.

The development of ubiquitous computing may offer new opportunities for the use of

ICT for learning and for the development and use of e-portfolios.

Previously, occupational and vocational learning has been divided between the theory

and knowledge base to be acquired in training schools and the practice that often takes place in the workplace. With the use of mobile devices and the spread of connectivity it

is at least theoretically possible to bring this learning together and to access theory and

knowledge in the context in which it is to be applied – in the work process.

Secondly – and possibly more important from a didactical point of view – is the

embedding of computer-based communication within the tools of the workplace. This

offers the opportunity to develop learning environments while simultaneously access“An educational portfolio documents

the accumulation of human capital.”

Helen Barrett, Alaska University, USA

ing and shaping the production and business process through such

interfaces. In other words, the context in which learning takes place

becomes the context in which the learning is to be applied, and the

learning interface – or the learning materials – becomes the occupa-

tional tools with which the (work process) knowledge is carried out.

Mobile devices may also have considerable utility within work-based learning, allow-

ing access to educational technology, learning materials and e-portfolios within the

workplace and even as part of the work process.

Whilst computing is not yet fully ubiquitous, there are increasing numbers of projects

promoting the use of different interfaces and mobile devices in learning. The BBC has recently reported on a new initiative in Scotland for all pupils over the age of 10 to be

given their own handheld computers in a project involving local councils in Edinburgh

and the Lothians. The device will provide them with free, round-the-clock access to the

Internet, the BBC say. Such devices mean that school students can literally carry their e-

Pedagogical concept

portfolio round with them and update it at any time in any place. Social software

Social software is used here with the meaning of software that lets people rendezvous, connect or collaborate by use of a computer network. It supports networks of people, content and services that are more adaptable and responsive to changing needs and

goals. Social software adapts to its environment instead of requiring the environment

to adapt to the software. In this way, social software is seen as overcoming “the absurd distinction between e-learning and knowledge management software” (Bryant, 2003).

Social software underpins what is loosely referred to as Web 2.0. Whereas Web 1.0 was

largely implemented as a push technology – to allow access to information on a dis-

persed basis, Web 2.0 is a two-way process, allowing the Internet to be used for creating

and sharing information and knowledge, rather than merely accessing external artefacts. Social software is increasingly being used in education and training through such

applications as weblogs, wikis, tools and applications for creating and sharing multime-

dia, and tools for sharing all kinds of different personal knowledge bases including book-

marks and book collections.

In software terms, rather than monolithic vendor-driven and designed applications,

Web 2.0 and social software are based on the idea of ‘small pieces, loosely connected’

utilising commonly recognised standards and web services for linking ideas, knowledge

and artefacts.

36

Social software offers the opportunity for narrowing the divide between producers

and consumers. Consumers themselves become producers, through creating and shar-

ing. One implication is the potential for a new ecology of open content, books, learning

materials and multimedia, through learners themselves becoming producers of learning materials.

Social software has been one of the driving forces behind the adoption of e-portfolios

for learners in bringing together learning from different contexts and sources of learning

and providing an ongoing record of lifelong learning, capable of expression in different forms.

Multimedia

Recent years have seen considerable advances in the capability and usability of multime-

dia applications. Computers have become more powerful and at the same time multimedia devices of all sorts have become cheaper and easier to use. These include handheld

devices such as the Sony PS2, MP3 players such as the iPod, video cameras and, of course,

the mobile phone. Advanced mobile phones now have powerful multimedia functionality including audio and video recording.

While five years ago the use of multimedia in an e-portfolio would have required

expensive equipment and much knowledge about computers, many schools are now

able to support such applications. This not only allows the development of ‘richer’

records of learning but also allows the recording of learning where and when it takes

place. It also – and importantly – provides access to learners who may not be confident

about recording and reflecting on their learning in a purely written format.

3.4 Critical issues in developing and implementing e-portfolios This section looks more closely at various problematic issues: the problems of the focus on assessment in many portfolio applications and implementations and the issue of

ownership. These two issues may be interlocked. As always happens with any innovation, e-portfolio development has taken place in the context of existing paradigms of edu-

cation and training. This means development has been dominated by universities and,

worse, dominated by the assessment goals of higher education institutions. Put quite

simply, portfolios have been seen as yet another form of recording and assessing student

achievement and content and curriculum and the provision of e-portfolio infrastructure. Assessing student achievement

The development and implementation of e-portfolios reflects an engagement by the

education and training systems and institutions with changing demands for education

through society and with changing forms of learning reflected through the use of social

software. At the same time, the effective use of e-portfolios implies and requires ongoing change in pedagogic and institutional practice and organisation. Nowhere is this so well

seen as in the area of assessment.

With the implementation of e-portfolios within educational institutions, the range of

achievement and learning reflected in the portfolio may be constrained by curricula and course objectives. One participant in a debate at Alt C 2005 said that an e-portfolio is

neutral with regard to what a disadvantaged learner can actually do, and another that it

can be made neutral with regard to how the learners’ achievements are recorded (Davies,

2005). However, if the only valid portfolio entries are those that support the attainment

of externally imposed objectives, the e-portfolio is not pedagogically neutral, neither do

learners own their learning. E-portfolios can be an important tool for recognising, record-

37

ing and validating non-formal learning especially if the portfolio application provides

means for peer group interaction, exchange and sharing. However, the recognition of

non-formal learning requires moving beyond formal learning objectives. Many existing e-portfolio applications place considerable restraints on what is seen as valid learning. Many existing e-portfolio applications tend to conflate the different processes

involved in developing a portfolio or focus on only one or two of those processes – usual-

ly recording, presenting and assessing. Helen Barrett has

said: “Those tools that purport to be more ‘assessment

management systems’ tend to provide an institution-

focused structure that makes it much easier to ‘score’

but more difficult for the learner to tell their own story of their learning.” (2005)

Smith and Tillema (2003) see a lack of match between

assessment criteria and the goals of the programme

of study, or what competencies students are expected

to develop. They also see a tension between the meas-

urement of standards and capturing development and

reflection. The danger is that learning and reflection will get lost in the drive to measure competency.

Dave Tosh and Ben Werdmuller (2005) have said:

“Already within some sectors it seems the term e-portfolio has become synonymous with another learning

hurdle for students and staff to overcome. Many institutions view the e- portfolio as a replacement for tradi-

tional high stake assessment, the object of the exercise

being coverage of all standards and criteria. Looking at

a Penn State University study we can see forty-four per cent of students say they will not use the e-portfolio

once they have finished the course to which the e-port-

folio related and the rest say they ‘were likely to do so’.

Pedagogical concept

This is a problem: if the e-portfolio is a course require-

ment and the motivation for use is because it is mandatory, how do you maintain learner motivation once the course has expired?”

That concern is echoed by Helen Barrett and Joanne

Carney (2005). “When portfolios are used for account-

ability purposes, to document pre-service teachers’

achievement of standards-based competencies, teacher candidates viewed their portfolios as a hoop they need-

ed to jump through to graduate, and not the lifelong

reflective tool that had been envisioned.”

They go on to ask: “In the name of assessment (i.e.

accountability) are we losing a powerful tool to support deep learning? Are we losing the

‘stories’ in e-portfolios in favor of a skills checklist?”

Rick Stiggins (2004) distinguishes between the assessment of learning and assess-

ment for learning. The assessment of learning seeks to discover how much students have learned as of a particular point in time. Assessment for learning asks how we can use

assessment to help students learn more.

The Assessment Reform Group (2002) defines assessment for learning as “the proc-

ess of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide

where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there.”

38

Assessment of learning is: | “Purpose prescribed

| Artifacts mandated – scoring for external use | Organized by teacher

| Summative (past to present) | Institution-centered

| Requires extrinsic motivation” In contrast, assessment for learning is: | “Purpose negotiated

| Artifacts chosen – feedback to learner | Organized by learner

| Formative (present to future) | Student-centered

| Intrinsically motivating” Assessment and portfolios are not just a question of the form of the assessment but also the assessment process. It has already been noted that assessment is often text based

and this may be a barrier to the development of e-portfolios. Furthermore, assessment

is usually based on individual achievement. This is a substantial barrier to collaboration,

reflection and feedback and to project-based group work.

Yet, there is no intrinsic barrier to the development of wider and more imaginative

processes of assessment including self-assessment and peer group assessment. Most

German university degree assessment already includes a verbal presentation; and some courses include the submission of video assignments. In the UK a number of schools

have adopted the ideas of Assessment for Learning (AFL) and AFL is being actively promoted by the Assessment Reform Group.

To some extent, the development of wider forms of assessment in e-portfolios has

been inhibited by fears over plagiarism. Whilst not wishing to downplay the problem,

this does appear to have the character of a ‘moral panic’. When the author of this chapter

was undertaking his initial degree in Wales in the 1970s, it was perfectly possible to buy

an essay or to commission others to produce one. The Internet has merely changed and

globalised the means of distribution. Indeed, the use of the Internet, through such serv-

ices as the JISC plagiarisation service, has probably led to more awareness of the issue.

The dangers of plagiarism are greatly reduced where students are set authentic work

assignments evaluated through authentic assessment. Fundamental to authentic assessment in educational theory is the principle that learners should demonstrate, rather than tell about, what they know and can do (Cole, Ryan & Kick, 1995). Documenting progress towards higher-order goals such as application of skills and synthesis of experience

requires evidence beyond what can be provided by standardised or norm-based tests. In

authentic assessment, information or data is collected from various sources, by multiple

methods, and over multiple points in time (Shaklee, Barbour, Ambrose & Hansford, 1997). Portfolio content can include drawings, photos, video or audio tapes, writing or other

work samples, computer disks, and copies of standardised or programme-specific tests. Data sources can include parents, staff and other community members who know the participants or programme, as well as the self-reflections of participants themselves.

Sewell, Marczak and Horn (undated) see the following advantages of an e-portfolio for authentic assessment. An e-portfolio:

| “Allows the evaluators to see the student, group, or community as individual, each unique with its own characteristics, needs, and strengths.

39

| Serves as a cross-section lens, providing a basis for future analysis and planning. By

viewing the total pattern of the community or of individual participants, one can identify areas of strengths and weaknesses, and barriers to success.

| Serves as a concrete vehicle for communication, providing ongoing communication or exchanges of information among those involved.

| Promotes a shift in ownership; communities and participants can take an active role in examining where they have been and where they want to go.

| Portfolio assessment offers the possibility of addressing shortcomings of traditional assessment. It offers the possibility of assessing the more complex and important aspects of an area or topic.

| Covers a broad scope of knowledge and information, from many different people who know the program or person in different contexts (e.g. participants, parents, teachers or staff, peers, or community leaders).”

E-portfolios can be introduced outside the traditional assessment system, and many

learners, especially those undertaking Continuing Professional Development, will have

no requirements for assessment, at least in the traditional sense. However, if e-portfolios

are to be introduced within the educational curriculum, it makes little sense to decouple the portfolio from the assessment process. But at the same time, effective pedagogic

processes for the development and support of e-portfolios require wider forms and processes of assessment than are common at present.

John Pallister from Wolsingham School has written:

“Thinking about how the e-portfolio process fits in with what students actually do. Students are given problems

to solve or things to investigate. Good practice would encourage students to agree/define their tasks/outcomes

and then to plan how they would carry out their investigation or solve the problem. They would go on to com-

plete their investigation, do it. Having done it they would then be encouraged to review their findings/solution. “The e-portfolio process is consistent with this PLAN, DO, REVIEW process. The e-portfolio process requires

students to collect evidence of their learning and achievements; select evidence to add to their e-portfolio IF it

would add anything to the existing evidence base; once the decision to add a particular item of evidence, the

Pedagogical concept

student then needs to make decisions as to where it should be linked (connected) into their existing e-portfolio. “Once the evidence has been connected/linked into their e-portfolio the student needs to reflect/think about

(review) what they have done, made, learnt or achieved. Having reviewed what they have done, made, learnt or achieved, they then need to Plan how to move forward.

“The only new bit about the e-portfolio process is the ‘requirement’ for students to record their reflections.

Relatively new ground for students, but potentially very valuable in terms of developing learning. Providing a

learning environment where students feel safe/comfortable to record and share their reflections prior to plan-

ning the next stage would appear to be the biggest challenge. With the exception of the need to record reflections, the e-portfolio process is not really requiring anything new. The process is consistent with good practice in terms of Assessment for Learning, students must know what it is they need to do/achieve before they start

anything, and they must be clear about what it is that they will need to have done/produced that will prove/ show that they have learnt/completed the task.”

Pallister, J. (2007), MOSEP visit to Wolsingham,

http://mosep.elggspaces.com/jpallister/weblog/archive/2007/02/, accessed 2 August 2007

Ownership and control

The second major issue is that of ownership and control. Håkon Tolsby (undated) says:

“portfolios can be used for controlling what the student should learn and how. They can

be designed as an instrumental approach where the activities in the portfolio are shaped

as tasks with predefined answers, instead of problems to be solved. Seen from such a

40

perspective the portfolio is degenerated to a structure for reproduction of knowledge,

and is not a tool for experiential learning.”

He warns that “portfolios can be used for watching and controlling the progress and

quality of work presented by the owner. It can be used for ‘punishing’ students that do

not fill the goals of the education and for discriminating and even discharging teachers that do not behave as expected.”

He goes on to say that, “from a learning perspective these aspects signify a step back

towards a learning style, which is far from the ideals of lifelong learning, student-cen-

tered learning and self-guided development. It violates fundamental democratic ideas

which should dominate school, work life and everyday practice, and in which our students ought to be educated.”

Tolsby points to the work of Dewey (1915) and Kolb (1983) in seeing learning as a proc-

ess that builds upon experience and reflection. It is important to engage the student in

meaningful activities; here the problem belongs to the student and is considered to be a personal goal (Dewey, 1915). This is a prerequisite in order for learning to be accommodated within the problem area (Illeris, 1981).

Furthermore, it is well documented that students are more engaged when working

with computer tools (for example, using digital portfolios) if the work is under students’ control rather than teachers’ (Salomon, 1995).

There is a growing appreciation that to be effective, learners need ownership of the

portfolio. This has included giving access controls to the learner, often at a fine-grained level (see, for example, the ELGG EduSpaces application). A number of universities,

including Brighton, Warwick and Leeds Metropolitan University in the UK and Linz Uni-

versity in Austria, have offered access to social software to all students and have encour-

aged students to use this space for recording all of their achievements, regardless of the context of learning.

However, in reality, ownership is a complex issue. The following diagram (Figure 1)

attempts to locate the different pedagogic processes involved in e-portfolio development within the wider education and learning environment (Attwell, 2005c).

e-portfolios External world

Verifying

Learner

Planning

Recognising

Assessing

Presenting

Moderating

Validating

Cerifying

Recording

Accrediting

Reflecting

Quality standards Who owns the e-portfolio?

Figure 1: Processes and ownership in developing e-portfolios

41

Within this construct, recognising, reflecting and presenting learning are under the con-

trol and ownership of the learner. Responsibility and ownership of verification, modera-

tion, accreditation and certification lie in the external education and training system.

However, the processes of planning, validating, assessing and recording learning are

a shared and negotiated process between the learner, teachers and educational institutions. Even so, it could be argued that the learner should ultimately control with whom

(and if) they wish to share. Open to the world?

One issue, not confined solely to e-portfolios, and related to ownership, is who should

be able to view the portfolio. This is an issue especially with younger students, for whom some education systems ascribe to schools ‘a duty of care’.

If an e-portfolio is open to the world, through the Internet, there may be a much great-

er opportunity of gaining feedback and of forming the social networks that are increas-

ingly seen as critical to learning. On the other hand, there are obvious concerns over the

security of data and for the safety of students. Furthermore, not all learners will always

want to share their learning.

An additional question is whether teachers and trainers should have access to the e-

portfolio. If the portfolio is owned by the learner, then it follows that they should be able to decide whether or not they wish a teacher to see their work.

Konrad Glogowski explores the dilemma in his blog, the Zone of Proximal Develop-

ment (2007):

“I’m beginning to think that walled gardens are not a bad strategy in elementary

schools and that, at least initially, young learners do need a safe place in which to share

their ideas and interact with texts. However, as students begin to exhibit more and more

interest in creating their own connections and in building networks, we need to have the

flexibility to remove the walls and encourage students to set up their own places outside of officially sanctioned school blogs or wikis.

“So, while the official school policy on privacy is not a problem now, it is likely to be an

obstacle in the future. I cannot continue to confine the students to our walled garden

Pedagogical concept

because, regardless of how supportive and effective it is now, it will eventually become stifling. Right now, the sense of privacy that the community affords seems to be some-

thing that the students really want. However, I’m pretty sure that within a year or so,

most of them will be ready to share their work online and will not want to limit themselves to our classroom community.”

There are different approaches to this issue in practice. Some e-portfolio systems have

been developed as a closed network, only providing access to those registered to do so. Others allow the students to decide with whom they wish to share their work. Some

systems, such as Elgg, have fine-grained access controls, allowing learners to decide for each post whether they wish

to keep the entry private, share with a group, or publish

openly through the Internet. Elgg also has administration

options allowing systems control over whether this level of

control is available to the learner or whether access to the

outside world should be limited.

Whatever option is chosen, it is important that students

learn how to use the Internet confidently and safely. Even if schools provide a safe walled garden, learners will be

using the Internet at home in an unrestricted environment. E-portfolios may be a useful medium for learning how to take decisions over access, data security and sharing.

42

Content and curriculum

Content and curriculum issues tend to be dealt with separately when discussing e-portfolios. However, they may be better viewed as being interlinked.

First, there is the issue – already discussed in this report – of whether e-portfolio con-

tent should be restricted to that related to formal course objectives and outcomes or

whether learners should be encouraged to include wider content drawn from both formal and informal learning – or indeed the fuzzy interface between the two – and from

wider contexts for learning including personal and social activities and from work. Of

course, if e-portfolio provision is extended to those not enrolled in formal education pro-

grammes or is used for Continuing Professional Development, it is likely that work and

personal learning will comprise the bulk of an e-portfolio.

The issue of selecting what to show in an e-portfolio can be largely overcome if the

system provides tools to select material for specific presentation. Not only does this facilitate different presentations for different purposes – just as when submitting a CV for a

job application or for entry to a course we re-purpose or re-present the materials to suit

the particular post or course we are applying for – but the process of selection itself is an

act of reflection on achievements and learning.

For those developing an e-portfolio within the context of an institution there would

seem to be some major issues concerning whether the portfolio is based on the entire curriculum, is based on a subject or project – or indeed is additional to the curriculum.

In a school recently visited in England the portfolios had been introduced essentially for careers planning with the support of the ICT department. This had two consequences.

First, they were not linked to the ‘normal’ subject les-

“The process can engage and motivate the digital

sons. Neither were they focused on reflection on infor-

natives that we are trying to teach. It harnesses

mal learning from outside the school – although hob-

the tools and technology that they have grown up

bies were included in so far as they were relevant for the careers planning. Secondly, the e-portfolio was largely

a presentation portfolio – there was little functionality

to make a selected presentation and students tended to

with and want to use, to support their learning.”

John Pallister

see them as the finished goods. Given the lack of links to subject-based learning, some of the students – and probably teachers – failed to see any great value, especially as

the University entrance authorities do not at present accept e-portfolios and there is as

yet limited awareness among employers of the potential of e-portfolios for employee recruitment.

However, there is also some evidence that more focused pedagogic development

is possible through an e-portfolio related to particular curriculum areas – such as the

innovatory use of blogs within English language and creative writing courses. Equally,

e-portfolios have been used as a tool for motivation with socially disadvantaged learners

undertaking vocational project work (Attwell & Brandsma, 2006).

Zeichner and Wray (2001) have produced a useful list of the issues and the decisions

that need to be made about why to construct a portfolio, how to go about it, what to include, and what happens after it is completed. These include:

| What is the purpose of the portfolio: for learning, for assessment, for professional development, or for employment reasons?

| Who decides what should be included in a portfolio: the student compiling the portfolio, or the people for whom it is being created? How prescriptive should guidelines for creating a portfolio be?

| How should the pieces of evidence in the portfolio be organised: around themes chosen by the student, around programme goals, or around achievement standards?

| What kinds of artefacts are acceptable as pieces of evidence? What should, and should not, be included in the portfolio?

43

| What kind of input should tutors, lecturers and peers have throughout the process of constructing the portfolio? Should there be a lot of involvement, or just a little?

| How frequently should students be expecting feedback on their progress?

| How should the portfolio be assessed: through very specific evaluation criteria and grading rubrics, or a more general pass-fail system?

| What should happen to the portfolio after it is finished: should there be some kind of public acknowledgement or presentation of students’ work? (Zeichner & Wray, 2001)

In a Careers Education Support Programme Briefing, Ward and Richardson (2006) look at

the main considerations in selecting an e-portfolio system:

| Purpose: Who is it for? What is it for? What do we want it to do for us and our learners? | Support and guidance: Does the system include structured and supported guidance, e.g. to support overall learner development?

| Information managed and how it is managed: Whose information? What sort of infor-

mation? Who will use the information? How will it be used? Who has an interest? Who has an obligation in respect of the information?

| Functionality: What functions will the e-portfolio support, e.g. usability by all regardless of disability or screen display preference, interoperability with other e-systems

so that information can be transferred and read, without re-keying, (e.g. institutional

SIMS/VLE, or e-portfolio systems in other institutions or other sectors, including pre-HE or professional bodies)?

| Form and feel: How does the system look and feel in use, and what do its outputs look like? (Ward & Richardson, 2006)

There are no ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers to these questions. More important is that all those involved in designing and implementing an e-portfolio should consider these

issues at the outset and plan and design formative evaluation to examine their impact.

A head teacher who has pioneered the introduction of e-portfolios says: “After 10 years

we realize that there is no best notion of what goes into a portfolio; rather, portfolios

serve as a metaphor for our continued belief in the idea that children can play a major

Pedagogical concept

role in the assessment of their own learning.

“This perspective, rather than a predetermined list of curriculum samples, should be

the guideline for placing particular items into a portfolio ( …) We now believe that the selection of the contents of the portfolio is an evolving process shared by child and

teacher. When children are just beginning to understand what a portfolio is, they require clear scaffolding. We advise students about including certain pieces of work that we feel

will be valued – if not now, at a later time. We have discovered that the conversations

that take place as portfolios are being compiled give the children the security to suggest

additional entries that are more personal or unique to their own school experience. One message about child ownership is very clear: we do not assign a letter grade or evalua-

tion to the portfolio. We honor the child’s world that is represented by the portfolio. We

want to learn more about that world so that we can more sensitively help each child

grow.” (Herbert, E. (1998), Lessons Learned About Student Portfolios, http://www.pdkintl. org/kappan/kheb9804.htm, accessed 2 August 2007) Digital natives

Whatever the choices in designing and implementing an e-learning (e-portfolio?) sys-

tem, it is important to remember that many young people are ‘digital natives’. Students carry with them and use naturally iPods, phones with video cameras, devices allowing

exchange of data by Bluetooth etc. There seems very little sense in forcing students to

use purely text-based systems for developing their e-portfolio.

44

Provision of an e-portfolio infrastructure

The question of who provides an e-portfolio is not a trivial one. To a considerable extent, the issue of the provider may affect both the pedagogic design and the use of the e-

portfolio. Perhaps most common is that e-portfolios are provided by institutions, schools, universities or continuing education providers.

The advantage of this arrangement is that the design of the e-portfolio can be linked

to the pedagogic approaches of the institution. It also allows institutions to set access controls to allay concerns about online privacy and safety. However, this may reduce

learner control, or at least learner perception of control of their learning space.

There is also a major divide between e-portfolios based on a particular course or

project and those based on overall learning provision. The MOSEP project found that e-portfolios based on project work could be extremely effective in motivating learners. It is also possible that

e-portfolios are especially suited to particular subjects,

for instance creative writing. On the other hand, where

the e-portfolio was being organised around only part of

the overall curriculum, there might be little understand-

ing or valuing of the portfolio work by the wider body of

teachers and possible resulting frustration from learners due to lack of feedback.

In either case, there is a major issue regarding trans-

ferability. What happens to the e-portfolio when a

student leaves the institution? To a certain extent, this issue may be resolved by the agreement on interoper-

ability standards. Such standards would allow e-port-

folio data to be transferred from one system to another. However, despite some progress in this field, there is

only limited agreement on standards and little wide-

spread compliance. Many systems do allow the data

to be extracted but that still begs the question of how the learner might use that data in the future, still less

how they can continue to develop their portfolio in the context of lifelong learning. One UK university is now

offering continued support for the e-portfolio as a (paid

for) alumni service. Without such agreement on stand-

ards and the chance to transfer the portfolio between different applications, there is the danger that learners will see little point in devoting time and effort to developing their

portfolio, especially if the portfolio does not contribute to assessment and accreditation. A second option would be for the e-portfolio to be provided on a city-wide, educa-

tion authority or regional basis. Careers Wales claims to offer Europe’s first nationwide e-portfolio providing tools for lifelong learning and personal development to provide

secure storage and online access for personal information about skills, achievements

and qualifications for Welsh citizens of all ages (Insight Observatory).

The web-based portfolio offers information, tutorials and interactive tools to support

self-assessment, reflection and action planning.

The initiative was launched by the National Assembly of Wales who envisaged “a life-

long learning passport delivered online to liberate latent talent from within the commu-

nity and transform Wales into a ‘Learning Country’.”

In England a number of local careers service providers are implementing e-portfolios

on a regional basis for local schools. Such initiatives require considerable planning and

investment.

45

Another option is for e-portfolios to be provided on a sectoral basis. In Scotland an eportfolio service is being provided for trainee medical staff.

The advantages of such wider provision are that the e-portfolio has the potential to

become a tool for lifelong learning. Furthermore, the e-portfolio is available to those not

enrolled on an institutional learning programme. However, to be effective, such provision

needs close partnership between the different institutions and organisations involved

in learning, including social partners – the trades unions and employers. Although such

partnerships may be difficult to organise, they are valuable in developing recognition of

the e-portfolio as a record of all learning, not just that gained through accredited course

provision.

Of course, the wider provision of e-portfolios requires considerable investment and

planning. The Wales e-portfolio was initially designed for an uptake of 20,000 participants.

Regardless of which model is adopted, Helen Barrett proposes the following steps in planning and implementing an e-portfolio:

| Create an action plan for implementing electronic portfolios that involves the following elements:

| Vision – provide a clear vision for the role of electronic portfolios in the overall programme = reduced confusion.

| Skills – provide adequate professional development for all stakeholders = reduced anxiety.

New skills and competencies

| Incentives – provide appropriate incentives to motivate all stakeholders = faster adoption.

| Resources – provide adequate resources for full implementation = reduced frustration. | Work with your innovators and early adopters during the early exploratory stages,

when processes are still fluid. Understand that a lack of structure or defined process

may be frustrating for some novices, at either portfolio or technology implementation.

| Find the natural leaders in your college/school/district, and engage them in the planning and initial implementation. They will be great allies in the transition process.

| Take the team through a change simulation (The Change Game) to test their assumptions about how to implement a comprehensive change.

| Assess the competencies of all of your staff who will be doing the full implementation, to determine the targeted staff development needed._

| Organize training activities based on the needs and readiness of the individuals.

(Barrett, H., 2004, Professional Development for Implementing Electronic Portfolios, http://electronicportfolios.com/teachers/profdev.html, accessed 2 August 2007)

The issue of who provides the e-portfolio and the transferability and interoperability

of e-portfolios will not be resolved in the short term. There remains a need to test and

evaluate different models. Progress towards interoperability is likely to take place in an

incremental way. Eifel are developing an interoperable format for generating a European

CV (Europass) that can be incorporated in different e-portfolio applications.

46

4

New skills and competencies for e-portfolio teaching and counselling

47

4 New skills and competencies for e-portfolio teaching and counselling As has been outlined in Chapter 2, teaching young learners needs special skills and this applies to e-portfolios also. What skills and competencies are required by learners to develop an e-portfolio and to guide such development? To answer this question it is

important to look at the changing ways in which children and young adults are using

computers in their everyday lives for social networking, for accessing information and

for (informal) learning. This will be outlined in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 In Section 4.3, the

new role of teachers and vocational counsellors in guiding young learners to develop an e-portfolio is discussed.

4.1 The changing way we learn John Seely Brown, in a speech in 1999, looked at the new dimensions of “learning, work-

ing and playing in the digital age”. One dimension he drew attention to was literacy and

how it is evolving. The new literacy, the one beyond text and knowledge, he said, is one of information navigation.

Linked to this was learning and how that too is shifting. He pointed to the growth of

New skills and competencies

discovery or experiential learning. As children work in the new digital media, he said,

rather than abstract logic they deploy Bricolage. Bricolage relates to the concrete and has

48

to do with the ability to find something – an object or a tool, a piece of code, a document

– and to use it in a new way and in a new context. But to be a successful bricoleur of the virtual rather than the physical you have to be able to decide whether or not to trust or

believe these things. Therefore the need to make judgements is greater than ever before. Navigation is coupled to discovery and discovery to bricolage, but you dare not build

on whatever you discover unless you can make a judgement concerning its quality or

trustworthiness.

The final dimension Seely Brown addressed was that of action. He suggests that new

forms of learning are based on trying things and action, rather than on more abstract

knowledge. “Learning becomes as much social as cognitive, as much concrete as abstract,

and becomes intertwined with judgement and exploration.”

Seely Brown’s early study has been reinforced by research by Lenhart, Madden and Hit-

lin for Pew Research (2005). The study found that 56 per cent of young people in America

were using computers for creative activities, writing and posting on the Internet, mixing

and constructing multimedia and developing their own content. 12 to 17-year-olds look to web tools to share what they think and do online. One in five who use the Net said

they used other people’s images, audio or text to help make their own creations. Com-

menting on the study, Lee Raine (BBC, 2005), said: “These teens were born into a digital

world where they expect to be able to create, consume, remix, and share material with each other and lots of strangers.”

In recent years many young people have established accounts on social networking

sites including Bebo, Facebook and MySpace. Services such as Facebook are targeted par-

ticularly at students. Such social networking services provide tools for content creation

and sharing and for developing networks of friends.

In a recent blog post, Ewen McIntosh (2007) says the average Bebo user spends 41

minutes a day online on Bebo, “sharing photos, video, news, what they’re feeling, finding out what their pals are feeling.”

He goes on to say: “That’s nearly a quarter of the average 200 minutes time that kids

spend online each day.”

Bebo has been working with Learning and Teaching Scotland and other organisations

to develop the Beboism ‘Be One’ attitude website (Bebo, 2007). This comprises four working areas:

| “Be Inspired – for all of you creative people out there | Be Cause – for those interested in social issues

| Be Enriched – for members seeking a more fulfilled existence | Be Well – for anyone interested in health and fitness.”

Of course, there is an issue as to how much learning takes place through participation

and engagement in social networking sites. However, the failure of the education providers to engage with this activity risks schools and other educational institutions becom-

ing irrelevant to the way in which young people interact and exchange ideas. As McIn-

tosh (2007) says, “What does education do to try to harness the skills being learned in

there? Hmmm …. ‘Could do better’. Well, we could just do it. The skills are there, the tech’s there, all that’s missing is the desire of those not in the know to learn.”

It is interesting to note that new teachers have themselves grown up with social net-

working tools. However, Christopher Sessums says:

“Most of our conventional f2f students are young and new to teaching. A majority have

MySpace and Facebook accounts so they are familiar with social media/social networking technologies, yet often keep these technologies separate from their professional

practice. Many of these student teachers see no connection between their personal use of the Read/Write Web (pdf) and their professional use.”

49

Lest it be thought that the use of technology for social networking and informal learning is limited to the so-called ‘Net generation’, a study of the use of ICT for learning in

small and medium-sized enterprises (Attwell, 2007a) found that, while there was little

evidence of formal e-learning, computers were being widely used for informal learning

through, among other things, participation in networks and distributed communities of

practice. Furthermore, there was some evidence that older workers were more likely to

participate in such activities (probably because of greater autonomy in how they under-

took their work). It was also noteworthy that, in addition to being motivated by the need

to solve work-based problems, much of the participation was driven by personal interest. E-portfolios offer an opportunity to allow learners to use computers as they do in their

social life, to create, to share and to network. They potentially represent a move to overcome the somewhat alarming gap between educational software and the applications

used every day both by young people and in the workplace. Why only ‘potentially’? The

ability to create, share and network depends on both the design of e-portfolio applica-

tions and the approaches to the pedagogic use of the e-portfolio as well as the integration of the e-portfolio in the wider context of curriculum provision.

4.2 Competencies and skills If young people are using computers in different ways for social networking and for

creating and sharing, what are the skills and competencies required for such activities?

New skills and competencies

As early as 2002 the International ICT Literacy Panel had developed wider definitions of digital literacy to address the spreading use of computers for learning.

The Panel, comprised of experts from education, government, non-governmental

organisations, labour and the private sector, including representatives from five countries

(Australia, Brazil, Canada, France and the United States), defined ICT literacy as “using

digital technology, communications tools, and/or networks to access, manage, integrate, evaluate and create information in order to function in a knowledge society.” (Interna-

tional ICT Literacy Panel, 2002)

The “continuum of skills and knowledge” required, they said, included:

| Access – knowing about and knowing how to collect and/or retrieve data; | Manage – applying an existing organisational or classification scheme;

| Integrate – interpreting and representing information. It involves summarising, comparing and contrasting;

| Evaluate – making judgements about the quality, relevance, usefulness or efficiency of information;

| Create – generating information by adapting, applying, designing, inventing or authoring information.

This is a useful starting list but the following competencies could be added (Attwell, forthcoming):

| Define – framing a problem or issue and developing a structure for approaching the issues;

| Apply – the ability to move between abstraction and practice – and, conversely, between practice and abstraction;

| Contextualise – the ability to apply knowledge from one context to another;

| Scaffold – the ability not only to integrate learning in a personal knowledge base but to develop and build ongoing learning;

| Search – the ability to use different search techniques to find knowledge and information;

50

| Make sense – the ability to make sense out of disaggregated sources of information and knowledge (this goes beyond evaluating or integrating);

| Share – the ability to judge when it is appropriate and useful to share learning. The acquisition and application of such competencies cannot be undertaken as a standalone ‘lesson’ in developing and maintaining an e-portfolio, but requires a broader

approach to teaching and learning, embedded in the wider curriculum. For both professional development and socially disadvantaged learning, it suggests the use of e-port-

folios cannot be regarded as a separate measure in itself, but has to be introduced as part of an overall approach to the recognition and

development of competencies. George Siemens (2005) has used the

term ‘connection preparation.’ He asks: “How can I prepare my stu-

“E-Portfolios for flexible learning and teaching in competency focused higher education.”

dents? I think I have to ensure that they are comfortable with expres-

M.W. Aalderlink, Windesheim University, NL

sive writing. I think I also need to make sure that they are comfortable using tools that

can help them navigate the networks around them and organize their personal knowl-

edge. I also believe that they need to be able to interact with these networks and to con-

tribute to them. Finally, they need the freedom to explore and connect, to co-construct, to learn through discovery. They need to know that the journey takes precedence over the final result.”

Henry Jenkins (2006) has proposed the following 11 skills for participation in what he

sees as a media culture. However, these skills seem to describe fairly well the competencies needed for developing a successful e-portfolio.

| “Play – the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem solving.

| Performance – the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery.

| Simulation – the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes.

| Appropriation – the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content.

| Multitasking – the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details.

| Distributed Cognition – the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities.

| Collective Intelligence – the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal.

| Judgment – the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources.

| Transmedia Navigation – the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities.

| Networking – the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information.

| Negotiation – the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms.”

It will be apparent from even a cursory consideration of these competencies that such

skills are not automatically acquired from everyday life. Such skills need developing and

many younger learners will need assistance in developing the competencies. Thus the

introductions of e-portfolios can only be seen as part of a wider change in teaching and learning strategies. Furthermore, the fostering of such competencies will have implica-

tions for the structure, form and content of the curriculum.

51

4.3 The role of teachers, trainers and vocational counsellors in e-portfolio work Case studies undertaken by the MOSEP project suggest that teachers and trainers have a key role to play in supporting young people in the development of an e-portfolio.

While such a role may merely embody the principles and practice of good teaching, it

may also reflect a wider change in role from didactic presentation to a more facilitative style of teaching.

Janet Jenkins (1999) sees the following changes for teachers resulting from the grow-

ing use of computers for learning:

| Change in relationship with pupils;

| Change in role to facilitators and managers who support learning; | Change in the content and scope of teaching;

| Change in locus of control, from teacher to learner. She comments:

“These are dramatic changes. It is no wonder that the teaching profession is concerned

about the implications of integrating ICT in schools. The barriers are formidable. ( …) The main difficulty is transforming teaching. What help do teachers need? The principle [sic] barriers faced by teachers in the adoption of new technologies have been summarised

by Dillemans et al. as follows: ‘large psychological barriers to trying out and using ICT …

New skills and competencies

difficult to change the pedagogical beliefs underlying teaching … difficult to change deep-rooted mental structures on the art of teaching … teachers are afraid of losing

authority and class control because they believe their competence in working with ICT is inferior to that of their students … rapid pace of change in computer infrastructure and

software … teachers and schools cannot keep up … problems and pitfalls at the institu-

tional and governmental level … the effort required from teachers to master new tech-

nologies is underestimated.”

Jenkins (ibid) concludes that teachers need “a new approach to their job and a new

vision of what it means to teach and what it means to learn.”

It is not just a question of confidence with technology. Katri Koistenen (2002) points to

different pedagogical approaches in changing the role of the teacher. “Current pedagogi“The e-portfolio is the DNA of personal and organisational learning environments”

Serge Ravet

cal way of thinking like constructivism emphasizes the learning as an

active process. To learn, a student has to construct information in his/ her own mind. The traditional role of teachers as information deliver-

ers is not any more valid. The teachers can still serve as ‘building blocks’,

but the students have to do the actual knowledge building process by

themselves.” She goes on to say: “When using the new communication and information technologies in teaching, the good start might be to forget the traditional authority of

teacher. I would like to describe teacher as a coach or a personal trainer. In many cases it can be even seen that teacher becomes a fellow student. In some cases the fellow student can even replace a traditional teacher.”

The following list describes what the new role of the teacher may be in supporting e-

portfolio development:

| “providing technical support and assistance;

| organising the contexts and communities of learning; | formulating organisational objectives;

| facilitating the structuring of portfolio contents; | facilitating reflection;

| guiding and monitoring the student’s advancement through the integral cycle of investigative learning;

52

| helping in the evidencing of competences; | supporting planning;

| interacting and conducting conversation with the students; | planning and assessing the overall process.” (Attwell, 1997)

What is perhaps critical is that teachers and trainers themselves develop their own e-

portfolios. In part, this is in order to understand the e-portfolio process; it is also a question of credibility.

Dave Tosh et al. (2005) have written: “In terms of promotion the problem is the peo-

ple trying to explain it have probably never used it so in a way they have no clue what

they are talking about, basically. To put it frankly – after listening to them you would be like, Okay, so you as an outsider who never even used it is telling us we should do this

because it is the best thing since sliced bread but you have never used it – you can’t find someone who did use it – you don’t have enough information to tell us how to use it

– and now you’re telling us to use it and we’ll grade you on it – this kind of makes it hard for students to accept or appreciate it.”

Helen Barrett (2004) makes the same point in seeing the competencies of learners to

develop an e-portfolio as similar to those of a teacher.

Student competencies, she says, are to be able to: | “Collect evidence of learning;

| Select specific evidence that demonstrates a particular outcome, goal or standard;

| Reflect metacognitively on learning represented in evidence, making a case that the artifacts constitute evidence of achievement;

| Make connections in their learning; | Set goals for future learning”

53

Teachers need to be able to model all the student competencies. In addition, they should be able to:

| “Articulate the difference between assessment OF learning and FOR learning; | Implement classroom-based assessment FOR learning strategies;

| Provide specific and detailed feedback to learners about their learning;

| Support student reflection through modeling and research-based practices; | Create an environment that facilitates students’ deep learning.”

To a considerable extent, the changing role of teachers, especially in the context of

e-portfolios, is a move towards acting as a facilitator. John Heron and James Kiltie (2006)

have identified different dimensions of facilitator style.

directive

(how things are done)

structured

(what is done)

non-directive unstructured

cathartic

non-cathartic

catalytic

non-catalytic

New skills and competencies

(extent to which facilitator takes emotional responsibility)

(extent to which facilitator manipulates the pace + pitch)

interpretive

non-interpretive

(extent to which facilitator is responsible for ‘sense making’)

disclosing

non-disclosing

(extent to which personal identity and values of facilitator are visible and affect the intervention)

confronting

non-confronting

(degree to which illegitimate values, meanings etc. are made explicit)

(prescriptive)

(descriptive)

(determining range of legitimate meanings)

Jenny Hughes and Graham Attwell (2006) point out there are no right or wrong

approaches – only those that are appropriate or inappropriate. This will depend on the:

‘natural’ style of the teacher. Although good teachers should be flexible and versatile

enough to adapt their facilitator style to different contexts, there may be some styles

that sit more comfortably with their personality and others that are alien. Experimenting with different styles is good practice but not at the expense of authenticity. Subject material and course content

The subject material will sometimes determine or predispose towards particular styles of facilitation. For example, a first aid course is likely to be very prescriptive, a course on art history far less so.

54

Time slot

The time of day, what has happened immediately beforehand or is likely to happen afterwards, is important. For example, the teacher may want to increase the directiveness

or tighten the structure when people are tired at the end of the day. Learners perform

better in unstructured situations when they are alert – before lunch is probably the opti-

mum time for learners structuring their own time and tasks. Stage of development of the group

What might be appropriate at the beginning of a learning programme may be inappro-

priate at the end. For example, the first evening of a computer course for women returners will need a very cathartic intervention from the tutor because it is important that

the students are constantly reassured, have fun and are made to feel good. Conversely, in the final year of a course on Counselling, the tutor may deliberately withdraw if tensions develop in the group because the way the group deals with them is part of the learning.

Sequencing of the teaching methods

You may want to change the style of intervention for ‘aesthetic’ reasons – simply to pro-

vide variety. Or changing the style can be part of the teaching methodology. For example, the teacher may start the day by structuring a debriefing on an activity that has been

completed and offering interpretations as to what happened. This may be followed by

the teacher asking the learning group to reflect on an exercise and offer their interpretations. Recommendations: The changing role of teachers and trainers using ICT for learning

There are many different pedagogic approaches to the use of ICT for learning and to

supporting technology-enhanced learning. Social-Constructivism is one of the most

cited, and misused, terms to describe innovative approaches to teaching and learning.

Notwithstanding ambiguities in the use of the term, research into social constructivism may be useful in developing pedagogic approaches to the development of e-portfolios. Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) describe the principles educational designers or

teachers use in the design of learning environments from a constructivist perspective.

They argue that ICT-supported learning is only useful (effective and efficient) if learning

is active, constructive, reflective, intentional, authentic (contextual and complex), conver-

sational and interactive.

Active learning means that learners are actively manipulating their learning environ-

ment and observing the effects of what they have done. In this way, learners are responsible for the results of their learning.

Meaningful learning implies actions, but actions are not enough. Learners have to

reflect on their actions and their observations. These reflections could or should lead to

the integration of new experiences and ideas with existing knowledge or should at least lead to insight into what the learner has to learn (constructive learning). It is this combi-

nation of active and constructive learning that makes learning meaningful. Learning is

not a result of practice alone; learners also have to elaborate their knowledge and skills

and create or construct new insights.

The authenticity of the learning environment not only leads to a better understanding

of cases or principles, but also results in a better transfer of learning outcomes to other cases and contexts.

To make a learning environment authentic, it should include complex and open tasks,

as well as simple ones. As in the ‘real’ world or job-related practice, people work together and interact in order to learn and solve problems. Cooperation between learners (both collaboration and conversation) is seen as important as a goal of learning as well as a

means of learning other content.

55

In the context of a formal education programme, learning has to be intentional

(although unintentional learning is welcomed also). It is important that learners know what their learning goals are and how they will attain them.

Yet, the issue of reflection is not simple. Indeed, in projects and at conferences about

e-portfolios, at some point the discussion always seems to turn to the issue of how to

facilitate meaningful reflection.

The following blog entry by a teacher, John Pallister (2007a), is typical.

“We have begun work trying to encourage our students, 11- 18 year olds, to reflect on

their learning and achievements. We are also encouraging them to record their thoughts The e-portfolio process – encourages learners to think

about and record their past experiences and future plans. They develop a deeper insight into their learning and

achievements, and in turn, they will hopefully develop a

‘positive’ attitude towards themselves and their abilities.

John Pallister

and reflections as part of the review/reflection process.

The review stage is informing the Action Planning stage, which again we are trying to get students to record. It

seems to me to be a Logical process, having done some-

thing, to review what you have done then to revise your original plan or create a new plan. Early attempts have

focussed on printed materials providing students with a number of prompts/questions which focus students on

the review process. We have experimented with text based and audio/video formats for

recording reviews/reflections. Early stages, not managed to find much help in terms of

approaches that help/encourage/support students to reflect and record their reflections

– still looking?

“Although I am sure that, having done something, all students will informally think or

New skills and competencies

form some personal evaluation of their performance, I suspect that the review/reflection is at a very superficial level: perhaps enjoyed it, not going to do that again, did not do

that very well, too difficult etc. If students walk away only having reflected at this level

they will not have made the most of the learning opportunity. The challenge is to some-

how encourage students to spend more time on this reflection stage, exploring more

what they have done/achieved. I suspect that this would help them to design more use-

ful plans and, by thinking about their learning, become that elusive better learner.”

The problem may be that to move beyond the superficial requires intrinsic motivation.

As such, it is not possible to ‘teach’ someone how to reflect. However, it is possible to pro-

vide learners with the skills required for reflection and to practise those skills and equally to provide a stimulus to encourage reflection. (Buchberger, G., blog, http://eduspaces.

net/gerlindeb/weblog/, accessed July 2007) Buchberger goes on to say:

“I have my doubts about the usefulness of written reflection following certain prompts

or guiding questions. We have been ‘forcing’ our teacher trainees to hand in written

reflections on their performance in class each semester, which hasn’t proved very successful. It’s turned out to make much more sense if trainees, their mentors and the

teaching practice supervisor (what a terrible word!) meet after class and in a very relaxed

atmosphere analyse the lessons as ‘critical friends’ (with a strong focus on friend!). This

is what we do regularly and trainees find it much more helpful than their written reflec-

tion papers. Perhaps – from time to time – a few notes summarizing such a talk might

be a reminder and starting point for further student reflection. But again it should make sense for the student, not just to satisfy the teacher/trainer.”

Stephen Warbuton (2007) attended a presentation given by a group at the University

of the Pacific on ‘Dialogical Reflection in the Digital Age’. “Like many educators,” he says,

“Jim Phillips and Erick Marmolejo grappled with the nature of reflection – a term that

often eludes definition. Their use of what they called ‘dialogic reflection’ was focussed

around reflective activities based on a play between the academic vs. professional portfolios, the production of artefacts and samples accompanied by reflective statement

56

with a summative assessment process slotted in right at the end. They identified general

problems with the reflective process when situated within an educational context in that opinion-laden task lists do not get at the heart of the strength of reflection, feedback

loops can be slow and not enough time is allocated to reflection which results in very

little reflective speak (there is only play around reflective dialogue). As Kathleen Yancey

points out in her book ‘Reflection in the writing classroom,’ reflection is always a fiction

where students write specifically to the needs of the tutor.

“The key philosophy behind their methodology to reinvigorate the process of reflection

lies in pushing tutors to unlearn traditional approaches to writing instruction paralleled

with the use of reflection as a means to individualise instruction and personalise learning.”

Jenny Hughes has adopted a similar approach. In a video of a workshop she takes a

group of adult learners through a process of providing constructive feedback to each other. Indeed, it is quite remarkable that adult teachers are not used to this process (Hughes,

2007). Her key point is that there are forms and structure and skills to providing feedback and in a similar way forms and structure to reflection. For learners these skills include:

| Forming an opinion

| Expressing an opinion

| Articulating an opinion | Justifying an opinion

| Defending an opinion

| Supporting opinions of others | Challenging others’ opinions | Questioning others

| Seeking clarification

| Representing others’ opinions | Building on others’ opinions | Sorting fact from opinion

57

Each of these processes can be structured and supported within the e-portfolio develop-

ment process. However, they also require skills on the part of the teacher or facilitator.

These might include: | Facilitator skills

| Active listening skills | Feedback skills

| Intervention skills

| Evaluation skills (Hughes, 2007) Yet, the practising of such skills or competencies or the embedding of such practice

within everyday learning activities has implications for both pedagogic approaches to

teaching and learning and to curriculum design and organisation. Facilitating reflection is not simple within a largely ‘input-based’ curriculum where the main goal is to pass a

series of prescribed examinations. The danger is that reflection is simply seen as irrel-

evant to the qualification-driven motivation of many students within their school-based

learning (as opposed to outside school). Case studies undertaken through the MOSEP

project suggest that development of reflection through e-portfolios may work best in

project-based learning and when reflection is linked to activities. It is interesting that, in the Kit Car project case study (Attwell & Brandsma, 2006), the project was developed as

an extra-curricular project and was not subject to the normal confines of curriculum and assessment rules.

It may also be that reflection is constrained by the dominant written form of evidenc-

New skills and competencies

ing within e-portfolios. The widespread use of multimedia is a feature of many of the

social networking sites referred to earlier. Yet, despite some attempts to encourage more

use of multimedia, most e-portfolios remain text based, probably once again due to the demands of assessment policies.

However, it must be recognised that there are substantial and real barriers to the

introduction of more radical pedagogies, designed to support more independent learn-

ing, self-assessment and reflection. In order to cope with these barriers, the MOSEP

project develops and tests a new e-portfolio training course, the structure of which is outlined in the next section.

4.4 The design of the MOSEP e-portfolio training course In the previous section we looked at the competencies required of teachers for using

e-portfolios with students. We concluded that it was not just a question of technical abil-

ity but also involved wider issues of a change in role from didactic presentation to more

facilitative styles of teaching. The objective of MOSEP is to develop a set of materials

for initial teacher-trainers, in-service teacher-trainers and vocational counsellors for the

use of e-portfolios with their students. Accordingly, in developing the MOSEP course, we

were concerned to integrate both knowledge about e-portfolios and how to create and

use e-portfolios with pedagogic approaches to teaching and learning through e-portfolios and the teacher’s role in supporting and facilitating learning. This section provides an overview of the structure, modules and content of the e-portfolio training course which

has been designed for different training settings, either as a face-to-face or combined learning programme or as a self-learning online programme.

The MOSEP course consists of five modules, namely one ‘Foundation module’ and modules 1- 4. The modules follow on from each other and it is recommended to work with them in the intended order.

58

Foundation Module 1. Introduction 2. Working with young learners 3. Digital Technology in the construction of identify 4. Integration of e-portfolio process with young learners 5. Planning and implementing an e-portfolio 6. Validation

MOSEP

Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Selection and Connection of Portfolio Artefacts 1. Purposes of creating e-portfolio 2. Privacy issues and selection of artifacts 3. Technical requirements and opportunities 4. Selection of artifacts for different purposes 5. Structure of e-portfolio

Reflection on the learning process 1. Understanding reflection and its role in the e-portfolio development process 2. Encouraging and stimulating review and reflection 3. Using tools to record and organise reflections 4. Reflection Workshop

Presentation of evidence 1. Purpose and content of a presentational e-portfolio 2. Design and compilation of a presentational e-portfolio 3. Organising an interview or a presentational situation 4. Delivering a presentational e-portfolio 5. Review, Reflection and Action Planning

Foundation module

Module 4 Assessment of learning outcomes and evaluation of the learning process 1. Assessment as a hidden curriculum 2. Learning goals and operationalisations 3. Feedback and peer communication 4. Evaluation of a learner’s portfolio

Figure 2: The MOSEP structure

What is an e-portfolio and what are its advantages? How to plan and implement an e-portfolio.

To start working with e-portfolios, you need to know exactly what e-portfolio work

means and how you can plan, implement and use it. These questions will be answered in the ‘Foundation module’, which gives an introduction to the whole topic and should be

read first.

1. Introduction | Why e-portfolio?

2. Working with young learners | How can I support young learners?

3. Digital technology in the construction of identity | Why might they need it?

4. Integration of e-portfolio process with young learners | e-portfolio and curriculum – which barriers, which strategies?

5. Planning and implementing an e-portfolio | How to plan and implement an e-portfolio 6. Validation

Module 1

Selection and connection of portfolio artefacts

How can I select artefacts and connect them to each other?

In this module you will develop the skills and understanding that will enable you to sup-

port learners as they select appropriate digital artefacts for their e-portfolio.

1. Purposes of creating e-portfolio | Why create e-portfolios?

2. Privacy issues and selection of artefacts | Who owns the e-portfolio?

3. Technical requirements and opportunities | What do I need, what do I get?

4. Selection of artefacts for different purposes | Why do I need what for which reason? 5. Structure of e-portfolio | What is the best way to structure it?

59

Module 2

Reflection on the learning process

How can I reflect on my own learning process during e-portfolio work?

As you have learned in the Foundation module (or already knew), the learner’s reflection on his own learning process is one of the main issues of e-portfolio work. In this module

you will work with your course tutor to develop the skills and understanding that will enable you to support learners in order to reflect on their learning process.

1. Understanding reflection and its role in the e-portfolio development process | Why is reflection important?

2. Encouraging and stimulating review and reflection | How can I encourage my learners? 3. Using tools to record and organise reflections | What exists and what is appropriate? 4. Reflection Workshop | How to set it up

Module 3

Presentation of evidence

How can an e-portfolio be presented?

In this module you will learn how to organise a possible presentation of e-portfolios and

their artefacts and how an interview could be initiated.

1. Purpose and content of a presentational e-portfolio | What is a presentational e-portfolio and what are its purposes?

2. Design and compilation of a presentational e-portfolio | What possibilities are there for designing and compiling the e-portfolio?

3. Organising an interview or a presentational situation | How to plan and design 4. Delivering a presentational e-portfolio | What do I have to consider? 5. Review, Reflection and Action Planning | What are the next steps?

Module 4

Assessment of learning outcomes and evaluation of the learning process

Open Source software

How can assessment be carried out and the learning process evaluated?

Here you will learn why assessment is important, how to plan and guide assessment of e-portfolios, and how feedback and evaluation can be carried out.

1. Assessment as a hidden curriculum | What does that mean?

2. Learning goals and operationalisations | How can I create them?

3. Feedback and peer communication | How can I initiate and motivate my learners’ feedback and communication?

4. Evaluation of a learner’s portfolio | How can summative assessment be carried out?

60

5

The Open Source approach to e-portfolio software

61

5 The Open Source approach to e-portfolio software This chapter provides an overview of the current e-portfolio software market (Open

Source and commercial) and describes the main functional features of selected software products. Furthermore, it provides an assessment of how suitable currently available

software is for young learners and teachers who are ‘e-portfolio beginners’. It strives to

offer information about and orientation on the software market and to support educa-

tional institutions in the choice of e-portfolio software products (see also the Annex and

Hornung-Prähauser, Geser, Hilzensauer & Schaffert, 2007).*

5.1 Approach, selection and analysis method The analysis was (where possible) carried out by means of demonstration accounts,

examining the main features from the students’ point of view. If it was not possible to

set up a demonstration account, descriptions, documentation and demonstrations on

the web pages of the respective suppliers were consulted to obtain the relevant information.

The software products were selected according to their degree of popularity and the

frequency of references in relevant literature, as well as according to the frequency of being named or cited in international discussion. In this chapter a detailed list of 19

software products is presented, giving information about the range of functions and

applicability of the products. In addition, the 5-level model by George Siemens is used

to create a well-structured classification. Siemens distinguishes between individual and

Open Source software

institutional benefits of e-portfolio software and thus offers a useful survey with respect

to expected benefits.

5.2 The importance of Open Source systems in education As early as September 2004 the European Commission decided, on the basis of

expert recommendations, to consider Open Source systems (OSS) a decisive factor for

Europe.3) In Austria, OSS is also gaining importance in the field of education, which

is shown clearly by campaigns initiated and supported by educational policy, such as

‘Desktop4Education’ 4) or ‘Edumoodle’.5)

Open Source software is in use in various areas such as content management, design

of web pages, online learning management and social bookmarking. The advantages of

OSS are widely known and acknowledged. Furthermore, many EU projects deal with this subject and the EU has set up an Open Source observatory, focusing on developments in

this area and supporting the introduction of OSS.6) * This chapter is based on a study conducted by the EduMedia Group at Salzburg Research, in which a detailed analysis of today’s most common e-portfolio tools was evaluated with regard to implementation in higher education institutions (Hornung-Prähauser, Geser, Hilzensauer & Schaffert, 2007).

62

In the field of e-portfolio software, Open Source activities can also be identified, and

currently three trends can be distinguished:

Independent e-portfolio software products:

Software solutions like OSP 7) and Mahara 8) are potential software products developed

especially for, and used for, portfolio applications. In the field of Open Source software

more products are available. Helen Barrett, an internationally acknowledged expert on e-portfolios, has compiled a list of 12 Open Source e-portfolio products.9)

Learning management systems with e-portfolio functions:

For the widely used learning management system Moodle, two potential portfolio mod-

ules are available as plug-ins (Moofolio 10) and Exabis 11)). This is particularly interesting for institutions already using Moodle, as the introduction of e-portfolio processes is compar-

atively simple. (In the field of commercial learning management systems, plug-ins with e-portfolio functions are also available.)

Figure 3: The LIPSTICK – web portal of the University of Linz (http://elearn.jku. at/cms/; accessed 5 April 2007)

Social Software, Web 2.0 and Social Networking Tools:

Social software is highly focused on the learners. Also, it can be assumed that wikis, blogs and other elements of social software will be available as standard tools for educational aid in the near future. The Johannes Kepler University Linz, for example, offers a large number of systems for teachers and students via e-learning platforms. The LIPSTICK

project 12) (Learning Improvement Peer Support and Teaching Innovation Community)

aims at promoting Internet-based teaching at the university.

5.3 Analysis of e-portfolio software products Compilation and short description of existing e-portfolio software products

The compilation in this section summarises the most important information about 19 e-portfolio software products and gives a survey of the most significant details.

All the information was taken from the respective web pages and categorised. The short description is also based on information from the web.

For a more effective survey, the e-portfolio software products were classified into five categories:

| Commercial e-portfolio software products | Open Source software products

| Learning management systems, with portfolio functions via plug-ins or the like

63

| Content management systems with extended e-portfolio functions | Integrated systems and system families

Commercial e-portfolio software products

Angel E-Portfolio, Fronter, PebblePad, EPET, iWebfolio, RAPID, eXact Portfolio, LiveText,

TaskStream

Open Source software

Elgg Learning Landscapes, Mahara, Keep Toolkit, OSP – Portfolio Learning management software with integrated e-portfolio functions

Blackboard / WebCT with portfolio module, Moodle with Exabis plug-in, Moodle with

Moofolio plug-in

Content management systems with e-portfolio functions

Factline Community Server

Integrated systems and software families

Scioware – Concorde (integration of portfolio functions with existing learning management functions), Winvision – MS-Sharepoint Server Portal

5.4 Classification according to institutional and individual benefit (Analysis according to the 5-level model by George Siemens)

George Siemens, founder of Complexive Systems, Inc., an independent research institution and learning lab, has developed a 5-level model in his work about ‘connectivism’,

Open Source software

which describes and defines the functional requirements on learning software.13) This Figure 4: George Siemens, Stages of e-portfolio development (http://www. elearnspace.org/Articles/eport)

model has been used by Helen Beetham for a classification and extended by functional requirements on institutions and individuals (cf. Beetham, 2007, 13ff.)

Level 5 provides health and

sustainability to the industry

Level 5 | Industry and Standards.

Interoperability, cross-institution sharing

Level 4 | Integrated. Portfolios are integrated Level 3 & 4 provide value for the institution and faculty.

Level 1 & 2 provide

the greatest value for the learner

64

into the process of insturction and assessment

Level 3 | Institution-sponsored.

Level 2 | Dynamic database driven. Central artifact pool

is used to create different representations based on learner need

Level 1 | Simple website, blogs, wikis.

Siemens defines five levels, characterising various e-portfolio tools with respect to con-

flicting priorities between individual and institutional benefit. Levels 1 and 2 offer greatest benefit for the learners, levels 3 and 4 for institutions, and level 5 for regional and

industrial development.

The functional requirements on e-portfolio software products can be described as follows on the basis of the above-mentioned five levels:

Level 1 | Static web pages

These are e-portfolio systems without database-driven interactivity. Demonstrations

of acquired skills are published by means of simple web-developing tools (PowerPoint,

Dreamweaver), online file structures (e.g. an FTP fileserver) or simple publishing and

authoring tools (Mediator). Weblogs and wikis also come under this category (though,

from a technical point of view, these software tools are regarded as database-supported systems)

Level 2 | Dynamic, database-supported document management systems

Systems assigned to this level fulfil all the requirements of level 1, but in addition offer

technical support for learners (e.g. a database-supported document centre) as well as for

the institution (multiple use and transfer of information and presentations, standardised

presentation of portfolios for the entire institution via public portal, access to and trans-

fer of individual portfolios).

Level 3 | Institutional systems

Software tools assigned to level 3 have the complete range of functions available at the

individual level, but are linked to institutional requirements and demands. The system is

used throughout the institution; functions and processes correspond to the institution’s

workflows and are coordinated accordingly. Information about the learning progress of individuals is accessible via a central system and can be used for evaluation processes.

Level 4 | Integrated portfolio systems

The portfolio process is supported by elements such as communication (between stu-

dents and tutors, students and peers), integration of a curriculum, as well as data transfer

between the portfolio system and a learning management system. Institutional development plans and educational policy-related development plans (PDPs) are supported by the system

Level 5 | Overall, cross-institution solutions, implemented on the basis of industrial standards

Software tools in level 5 are incorporated into a network of institutional systems and can be used in regional activities and strategies. International standards for interoperability are used for data interchange.

In the following illustration it was attempted

to classify the e-portfolio software products

described above, but they could not always be

assigned to a definite group.

The illustration is therefore intended to serve

as a basis for discussion for decision-makers.

65

Level 5 | Winvision Digital Portfolio, Scioware-Concorde

Level 4 | PebblePad, Blackboard + eP Modul, Mahara, LiveText, TaskStream, eXact Portfolio, Angel ePortfolio, EPET, iWebfolio

Level 3 | Factline Community Server, Moodle + eP Modul, Plone Contentmanagement + Workflowmanagement, Fronter, OSP-OpenSourcePortfolio

Level 2 | Elgg-EduSpaces, Joomla-Contentmanagement, Drupal-Contentmanagement

Level 1 | MS-Word, MS-PowerPoint, Macromedia Dreamweaver, Wordpress, Matchware-Mediator, Keep Toolkit

Figure 5: Classification of e-portfolio software products according to G. Siemens (Salzburg Research, 2007)

Figure 5 shows that commercial systems can be assigned to levels 3 and 4 and therefore

(compared with classical Open Source tools) have a tendency to be orientated towards institutional requirements rather than individual ones.

For Open Source software products, no consistent classification can be made, which

indicates that, depending on the orientation of the functional features, individual or institutional demands have been taken into consideration.

Open Source software

The area of ‘integrated systems’ must be assigned to a high level, which indicates that

the level of integration into existing systems and data environments can be supported

by these tools.

That not only software classed as e-portfolio software is in use is shown by the exam-

ple of the ‘E-Me’ 14) project at Wolsingham School & Community College,15) where pupils

build their presentation portfolios using an authoring tool (Matchware Mediator).

Another example is the Swiss learning log project,16) where weblogs are being used for e-portfolio work and learning logs.

5.5 Description of functional features In this section, several of the criteria of WCET EduTools 17) were used for the description of

the functional features.

The criteria for analysis are given in a feature list, specially developed for the analysis of

e-portfolio software by a group of e-portfolio experts. The list was published with a Crea-

tive Commons license and is available free of charge as a matrix for individual e-portfolio

analysis.

For the present study, the majority of criteria/functional features from this catalogue

were translated into German and used as a guideline for description.

EduTools is a project of the independent WCET consortium, the Western Cooperative

for Educational Technology,18) whose aim is to promote the use of educational technologies in university work. For this purpose, WCET is supporting various projects and activi-

66

ties investigating the added value of these technologies. One of the projects initiated

and supported by WCET is EduTools, which carried out an analysis of seven commercial

e-portfolio software products in spring 2006 in cooperation with seven universities. For

this analysis, a categorisation system was developed to enable a structural description

of the various features and functions of e-portfolio software. This categorisation system

was published under the Creative Commons license ‘by-nc 1.0’, 19) is accessible without restriction, and can be adapted.

For the present study, a range of relevant categories was selected, translated into Ger-

man and used for the analysis of 11 software products.

Figure 6: Range of functions of e-portfolio software products (Salzburg Research, 2007)

5.6 Categorisation and assessment of the range of functions

function fully available

In the course of the analysis it became obvious that the ‘existence’ of certain functional

features in a system does not give any information about the flexibility and range of

function available

these functions. Therefore, it was attempted to include a simple and comprehensible

function not available

Free text input

WinVision

FCS

Exabis

Moofolio

WebCT

Mahara

ELGG

not stated

OSP 2.0

E-Folio

iWebfolio

Range of functions

PebblePad

system to assess the range of individual functional features.

Annotations Online content editing Internal linking External linking Upload documents

Templates

Advice Reflection Evaluation Presentation Modification of templates by users Assessment Access control

Publication

Types Publish to Web Commenting Syndicate External/internal Communication

Sustainability

Analysis Organise tools

Searching Collecting space/document management Categorisation Selection Tracking Comparing Assessments Systems integration Migration and export Technical support

67

The assessments used the following values:

| (dark blue) Clearly available: the functional feature exists and provides additional functions for the user

| (medium blue) Available: the functional feature exists and fulfils the purposes indicated

| (light blue) Not available: the functional feature is not provided by the system

| (white) Empty: the respective information could not be identified in this analysis The above-mentioned analysis model has been transformed into a graphical representation to enable direct comparison between various e-portfolio software products.

To the above-mentioned evaluation criteria a colour code has been added, as shown in

the chart below (Figure 6).

Figure 6 shows that commercial software products tend to have a wider range of func-

tional features. Open Source products in particular have some weaknesses; therefore it seems that these products have been developed for specific aims and not for multiple

purposes.

A weakness of all software products is the function of ‘comparison’ of e-portfolio arte-

facts. Only the Factline Community server has such a function available.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the ‘syndication’ of portfolio content and portfolio web

pages does not seem to be an important objective at present and is supported by only a

few systems (in other words, only a few references to ‘syndication’ could be found during

Open Source software

the analysis).

5.7 Assessment of appropriateness for e-portfolio beginners The aim of this section is to support decision-makers and show to what degree e-portfolio software products are appropriate for use in individual application areas. Besides

technical and organisational matters, usability also has to be taken into consideration. This analysis does not apply elaborate usability procedures, as described by Nielsen

(Nielsen, 1992) and other authors, as neither the required setting (laboratory) nor the required software (e.g. mouse tracking, eye tracking) was available. Instead, it was

attempted to compare the functional features of the software with the required portfo-

68

lio skills of the learners. It was assumed that the functional features and their processes

and usability support the user in various ways in the individual work. The question to be answered in this analysis is: Is the described functional feature appropriate for portfolio beginners? How much do the functions and functional features provided support the user without making tutor intervention necessary? The values are as follows:

| (dark blue): The functional feature is appropriate for beginners: The characteristics of

the functional feature predefine the portfolio process as such. Therefore, few portfolio

skills are required from the users in order to be able to use the features in the portfolio

process.

| (medium blue): The functional feature is moderately appropriate for beginners: Users

need to have basic portfolio skills to use this functional feature, or external instruction is required.

| (light blue): The functional feature is not really suited for beginners: A high level of e-

Figure 7: Appropriateness of functional features for portfolio beginners (Salzburg Research, 2007)

portfolio skills is required to use this feature. The user must have a clear idea of his/her

Appropriate

own portfolio conception and be able to use the system and its functional features

individually and flexibly.

Moderately appropriate

| (white): The functional feature is not provided or an assessment of the required portfo-

Not suited

lio skills was not possible.

Free text input

WinVision

FCS

Exabis

Moofolio

WebCT

Mahara

ELGG

OSP 2.0

E-Folio

iWebfolio

e-portfolio beginners

PebblePad

Appropriate for

N/A

Annotations Online content editing Internal linking External linking Upload documents

Templates

Advice Reflection Evaluation Presentation Modification of templates by users Assessment Access control

Publication

Types Publish to Web Commenting Syndicate External/internal Communication

Analysis Organise tools

Searching Collecting space/document management Categorisation Selection Tracking Comparing Assessments

69

Conclusion:

This analysis of the appropriateness of functional features for portfolio beginners shows that the majority of e-portfolio software products seem to be perfectly appropriate for

beginners.

Software-aided portfolio work can never replace tutorial guidance, but the usability

of the software products on the market makes them suitable for carrying out portfolio

processes with portfolio beginners.

The graphical representation above shows that commercial software products and

software dedicated to portfolio processes are more appropriate for beginners than other

products. The leading tools are iWebfolio, PebblePad, Winvision and WebCT/Blackboard.

Their manufacturers seem to have contributed a lot of experience and know-how to the development of user-friendly features.

The weak points of OSP2.0 and FCS are their complex and scarcely comprehensible

internal process sequences. It can be assumed that the link-up between OSP2.0 and the

learning management system Sakai was detrimental to usability, and that FCS offers too

many features facilitated by the system. With instruction provided, the system is very

good and is flexible to use; its installation as an e-portfolio system at the Fachhochschule

Burgenland 20) proves its successful application as a portfolio system.

The large number of white fields shows that the majority of software products do not

provide all the functional features recommended by WCET Edutools. This can be attrib-

uted to the fact that only commercial e-portfolio software products were developed for a

variety of applications. ‘Homemade’ software solutions and Open Source software products focus on a principal aim and therefore provide only a limited range of functional

features.

To sum up, it can be concluded that, with regard to usability in portfolio processes,

commercial software products offer greater support for portfolio beginners. Furthermore,

software solutions developed or promoted by an educational institution orientated to coursework, or adapted for application in such institutions (e.g. PebblePad), are more

References

appropriate for portfolio beginners.

70

6

References

71

6 References Adamczyk, H., Blumör, M., Bartusch, S., Ehrl, B., Elbel,G., Gaupp, N., Gradl, N., Greifenberg, M., Kirchbach, U., Koop, H., Krause, A., Kröcker, N., Lex, T., Mittag, H., Neumüller, P., Reißig, B., Siegfried, A., Smyrek, W., Stelte, M., Wegner, G. and Wesemann, D. (2004). Strateg-

ien und Methoden der Kompetenzagenturen. URL: http://kompetenzagenturen.inbas. com/download/ka/2520_0412_pub_werkstattbericht.pdf, accessed 27 July 2007.

| ALTEC, the University of Kansas (2007). Building Motivation. URL: http:// pblchecklist.4teachers.org/more.shtml, accessed 22 January 2007.

| Argyropoulou, K. and Sidiropoulou D. (2003). Applications of Self- Efficacy Theory to the Understanding Career Decision Making of Higher Education Students. Department

of Psychology, University of Athens, Greece; presentation and paper at Fachkongress

2003, Quality in Vocational Counselling and Training. URL: http://www.svb-asosp.ch/ kongress/data/docs/argyropoulou_01.pdf, accessed 21 July 2007.

| Assessment Reform Group (2002). Testing, Motivation and Learning. URL: http://arg. educ.cam.ac.uk/TML%20BOOKLET%20complete.pdf, accessed 5 July 2007.

| Attwell, G. (1997). New roles for vocational education and training teachers and trainers in Europe: a new framework for their education. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol. 21, Issue 6/7, pp. 256-265, MCB UP Ltd.

| Attwell, G. (2005a). ePortfolio use – where, how, why?, Wales Wide Web. URL: http://

www.knownet.com/writing/weblogs/Graham_Attwell/entries/0786277508, accessed 20 September 2005.

| Attwell, G. (2005b). Portfolios, social software and non formal learning, Wales

References

Wide Web. URL: http://www.knownet.com/writing/weblogs/Graham_Attwell/ entries/3353848746, accessed 20 September 2005.

| Attwell, G. (2005c). Recognising Learning: Educational and pedagogic issues in e-Portfolios. Paper presented at e-portfolio conference, Cambridge, September 2005.

| Attwell, G. (2006). Social Software, Personal Learning Environments and Lifelong Competence Development. URL: http://www.knownet.com/writing/weblogs/Graham_

Attwell/entries/6665854266/LLLandple.rtf/attach/LLLandple.rtf, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Attwell, G. and Hughes J. (2006) Teaching Styles (video). URL: http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-4423062597571110104, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Attwell, G. (2007a). Searching, Lurking and the Zone of Proximinal Development: elearning in Small and Medium Enterprises. Vienna: Navreme.

72

| Attwell, G. (2007b). Review of a great paper on authenticity and transactional

learning. URL: http://www.knownet.com/writing/weblogs/Graham_Attwell/ entries/0490382119/blog_forum, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Attwell, G. and Brandsma, J. (2006). The Kit car project – South Cheshire College, Crewe, case study produced for the MOSEP project.

| Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy Theory. The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.

| Bandura, A. (2006). Adolescent Development from an agentic perspective. In: F. Pajares and T. Urdan (2006). Adolescence and Education, Vol. V, Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adoles-

cents. A volume in the series Adolescence and Education published by Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, pp. 1-45. URL: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/AdoEd5.html , accessed 21 July 2007.

| Barab, S.A., Squire, K.D. and Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting

the emergence of authenticity. In: Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 37-62.

| Barrett, H. (2004). Portfolio Development Competencies. URL: http://electronicportfolios.com/teachers/competencies.html, accessed 30 January 2007.

| Barrett, H. (2005). Portfolios For Learning. URL: http://electronicportfolios.org/ blog/2005_05_01_eportfolios_archive.html, accessed 5 July 2007.

| Barrett, H. and Carney, J. (2005). Conflicting Paradigms and Competing Purposes in Electronic Portfolio Development. URL: http://electronicportfolios.org/portfolios/LEAJour-

nal-BarrettCarney.pdf, accessed 20 September 2005.

| Barrett, H. (2004) Professional Development for Implementing Electronic Portfolios, http://electronicportfolios.com/teachers/profdev.html, accessed 2 August 2007.

| Barrett, H. and Knezek, D. (2003). E-portfolios: Issues in assessment, accountability and

preservice teacher preparation. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL, 22 April 2003.

| Barton, K., McKellar, P. and Maharg, P. (2005). Authenticity in Learning: Transactional

Learning in Virtual Communities. URL: http://www.law.ucla.edu/docs/barton_mckellar_maharg_authenticity_in_learning.pdf, accessed 5 July 2007.

| BBC (2007). Mini Computers for School pupils, 19 January 2007. URL: http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6280399.stm, accessed 29 January 2007.

| Bebo (2007). BE ONE. URL: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MID=367137231&Memb erId=3400373057, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Becta (2007a). Impact study of e-portfolios on learning. URL: http://partners.becta.org. uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/impact_study_eportfolios.doc, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Becta (2007b). Recognising and Recording Progress and Achievement in Non Accred-

ited Learning (RARPA). URL: http://www.aclearn.net/display.cfm?page=1290, accessed 22 January 2007.

| Beetham, H. (2007). E-portfolios in post-16 learning in the UK: developments, issues

and opportunities. JISC e-Learning Programme. URL: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_ documents/ePortfolio_ped.doc, accessed 26 April 2007.

| Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: where we are today. In: International Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 31, pp. 445-457.

| Boekaerts, M. and Corno, L. (2005) Self-Regulation in the Classroom: A Perspective on Assessment and Intervention. In: Applied Psychology. Special Issue: Self-Regulation

Across Domains of Applied Psychology: Is there an Emerging Consensus? Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 199-231.

| Brown, J.S. (1999). Learning, Working & Playing in the Digital Age. URL: http://serendip. brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/seelybrown/seelybrown.html, accessed 30 July 2007.

73

| Bryant, L. (2003). Smarter, Simpler Social, An introduction to online social software

methodology. URL: http://www.headshift.com/moments/archive/sss2.html, accessed 30 January 2007.

| Butler, P. (2006). A Review Of The Literature On Portfolios And Electronic Portfolios. URL: https://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/176/1111/ePortfolio%20Project%20Research %20Report.pdf, accessed 24 December 2006.

| Cambridge, D. (2003). IMS ePortfolio Request for Requirements. URL: http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/files/imsEportfolioRequirementsRequest.doc, accessed 5 July 2007.

| Challis, D. (2005). Towards the mature ePortfolio: Some implications for higher education. In: Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, No. 31. URL: http://www.cjlt. ca/content/vol31.3/challis.html, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Czesana, V. and Matouskova, Z. (2004). Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of Vocational Education and Training Systems. Country Report: Poland. URL: http://

www.refernet.org.uk/documents/Country_Report_Poland.pdf, 16 July 07, accessed 24 December 2005.

| Cole, D.J., Ryan, C.W. and Kick, F. (1995). Portfolios across the curriculum and beyond, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

| Committee of the Regions United Kingdom Delegation. (2003). European benchmarks in education and training: follow up to the Lisbon European Council. URL: http://international.lga.gov.uk/representation/cor/archive/data/plenary-session/09-04-2003/11. pdf, accessed 27 July 2007.

| Crites, J.O. (1978). Career Maturity Inventory: Administration and use manual. Monterey: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

| Cross, J. (2006). What is informal learning? URL: http://informl.com/?p=551, accessed 22 January 2007.

| Davies, S. (2005). ALT-C Conference report: e-portfolios – empowering or enervating?

URL: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=e_portfolio_news080905, accessed 20 September 2005.

| Damyanovic, U. and Fragoulis, H. (2004). Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of

Vocational Education and Training Systems. Country Report: Bulgaria. URL: http://www.

refernet.org.uk/documents/Country_Report_Bulgaria.pdf, accessed 24 December 2005.

| Dearing, R. (1997). Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. URL: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/, accessed 5 July 2007.

| Dewey, J. (1915). Democracy and Education. An introduction to the Philosophy of Education. The Free Press.

| Eccles, J.S. and Midgley, C.M. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames and R. Ames (eds), Research on moti-

vation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186), San Diego: Academic Press.

| European Commission (2006). Progress towards the Lisbon Objectives in Education and Training. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/progressreport06.pdf,

References

accessed 21 July 2007.

| European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2007):

Quality of work and employment 2006. URL: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2006/60/en/1/ ef0660en.pdf, accessed 20 July 2007.

| Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2006). Sustainable Development in Germany.

Indicator Report 2006. URL: http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/desta-

tis/Internet/EN/Content/Publikationen/SpecializedPublications/EnvironmentEconomicAccounting/IndicatorReport2006?property=file.pdf, accessed 27 July 2007.

| Fiedler, S. and Kieslinger, B. (2006). iCamp pedagogical approach and theoretical back-

ground. URL: http://www.icamp.eu/fileadmin/deliverables/D1.1_icamp_pedagogicalapproach.pdf, accessed 5 July 2007.

74

| Glogowski, K. (2007). Privacy and scaffolding. URL: http://www.teachandlearn.ca/ blog/2007/01/30/privacy-and-scaffolding/, accessed 1 February 2007.

| Grollmann, P. and Ruth, K. (2004). Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of Voca-

tional Education and Training Systems. Country Report: Lithuania. URL: http://www.refer-

net.org.uk/documents/Country_Report_Lithuania.pdf; accessed 16 July 2007.

| Gross, H., Hanf, G. and Hippach-Schneider, U. (2004). Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of Vocational Education and Training Systems. Country Report: Germany. URL: http://www.refernet.de/documents/Country_Report_Germany.pdf, accessed 27 July 2007.

| Häcker, T. (2006). Portfolio: ein Entwicklungsinstrument für selbstbestimmtes Lernen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.

| Harri-Augstein, S. and Thomas, L. (1991). Learning Conversations: The self-organised learning way to personal and organisational growth. London: Routledge.

| Herbert, E. (1998). Lessons Learned About Student Portfolios, http://www.pdkintl.org/ kappan/kheb9804.htm, accessed 2 August 2007.

| Heron, J. and Kiltie, J. (2006). Assipa. Assisting Learning by Participatory Evaluation. URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3487435280935782808, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Illeris, K. (1981). Modkvalifiseringens pædagogik – problemorientering. Deltagerstyring og eksemplarisk indlæring. Unge Pædagoger. ISBN 87-87400-44-8.

| ICT Literacy (2002). Equipping Students to Succeed in an Information-Rich, TechnologyBased Society. URL: http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/ICT_Literacy/pdf/ICT_Equipping_ Students_to_Succeed.pdf, accessed 19 July 2007.

| Jackson, W. and Davis, G. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in the 21st Century. Williston: Teachers College Press.

| JISC, Infonet (undated). Definitions. URL: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/effectiveuse-of-VLEs/e-portfolios/e-portfolios-definitions, accessed 9 January 2007.

| Jenkins, J. (1999). Teaching for Tomorrow: The Changing Role of Teachers in the Connected Classroom. URL: http://www.eden-online.org/papers/jenkins.pdf, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. MC Author. URL: http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/

cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF, accessed 30 January 2007.

| Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning With Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

| Hornung-Prähauser, V., Geser, G., Hilzensauer, W. and Schaffert, S. (2007). Didaktische,

organisatorische und technologische Grundlagen von E-Portfolios und Analyse interna-

tionaler Beispiele und Erfahrungen mit E-Portfolio-Implementierungen an Hochschulen. Salzburg. URL: http://edumedia.salzburgresearch.at/images/stories/e-portfolio_studie_ srfg_fnma.pdf, accessed 27 July 2007.

| Hughes, J. (2007). Giving Feedback. URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3043027997243055368, accessed 22 February 2006.

| International Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Literacy Panel (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT Literacy. Educational Testing Services (ETS), Princeton, NJ. URL: http://www.ets.org/research/ictliteracy/ictreport.pdf, accessed 25 July 2004.

| JISC (2006). ePortfolio Reference Model. JISC Distributed eLearning Programme. URL:

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/epreferencemodel/keydocuments/ep4llfinalreport1b.pdf, accessed 28 March 2007.

| Kolb, D.A. (1983). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall.

75

| Koistinen, K. (2002). Towards Virtual Academy – Teacher’s Changing Role. URL: http:// www.fig.net/pub/fig_2002/Ts2-4/TS2_4_koistinen.pdf, accessed 30July 2007.

| Leney, T. (2004). Achieving the Lisbon goal: The contribution of VET Executive Summary. URL: http://www.vetconference-maastricht2004.nl/pdf/Executive_Summary_041104. pdf, accessed 16 July 2007.

| Lenhart, A., Madden, M. and Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and Technology. Youth are leading

the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/ pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Leney, T. (ed.) and May, T. (2004). Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of Voca-

tional Education and Training Systems. Country Report: UK. URL: http://www.refernet. org.uk/documents/Country_Report_UK.pdf, accessed 27 July 2007.

| Loukanova, P. (2000). The welfare state, labour markets and employment policies during the prolonged transition: The case of Bulgaria. URL: http://www.issa.int/pdf/helsinki2000/topic1/2loukanova.PDF, accessed 12 July 2007.

| Martin, S. (2000). Portfolios: Philosophy, Problems and Practice.

| McIntosh, E. (2007). 41 minutes per day... URL: http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2007/05/41_minutes_per_day.html, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Pallister, J. (2007). Blog. URL: http://mosep.elggspaces.com/jpallister/weblog/ archive/2007/02/, accessed 5 July 2007.

| Pallister, J. (2007a). Reflection and recording reflection. URL: http://mosep.elggspaces. com/jpallister/weblog/10.html, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Pajares, F. and Urdan, T. (2006). Adolescence and Education, Vol. V: Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. A volume in the series Adolescence and Education published by Informa-

tion Age Publishing, Greenwich. URL: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/AdoEd5.html, accessed 21 July 2007.

| PebblePAD (undated). Definitions. URL: http://www.pebblelearning.co.uk/definitions. asp , accessed 5 July 2007.

| Raine, L. (2005). In: US youths use internet to create. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ technology/4403574.stm, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Raluca, B. (2006). Social Inclusion of young disadvantaged groups. Some reflections

from the Peer Learning Study Visit on Social Inclusion. URL: http://studyvisits.cedefop.

europa.eu/assets/upload/documentation/combat_social_exclus/PLA_SocialInclusion_ Report_2006.pdf, accessed 21 July 2007.

| Ravin, Y. (2005). Creating Prototype Technology. URL: http://www.checkpoint-elearning. com/article/2006.html, accessed 22 January 2007.

| Richardson, H.C. and Ward, R. (2005). Developing and implementing a methodology for reviewing ePortfolio products. URL: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/epfr. doc, accessed 24 December 2005.

| Riepl, B. (2004). Jugendliche SchulabbrecherInnen in Österreich. Ergebnisse einer Literaturstudie. URL: http://www.euro.centre.org/data/1129556932_99426.pdf, accessed

References

12 July 2007.

| Roberts, G. (2006). Wider Opportunities for Reflection, Learning and Development.

In: JISC-Distributed E-Learning. URL: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/pro-

grammes/distributed_elearning/myworld_petal2_draftfinal.doc, accessed 23 March 2007.

| Salomon, G. (1995). What the Design of Effective CSCL Requires and How Do We Study Its Effects, CSCL95, Indiana.

| Schaffert, S., Hornung-Prähauser, V., Hilzensauer, W. and Wieden-Bischof, D. (2007). EPortfolio Einsatz an Hochschulen: Möglichkeiten und Herausforderungen. In: Brahm

T./Seufert S. (Hrsg), Ne(x)t Generation Learning: E-Assessment und E-Portfolio: halten sie, was sie versprechen?, SCIL-Arbeitsbericht, 13 March 2007.

76

| Schmid, K. (2004). Achieving the Lisbon Goal: The Contribution of Vocational Education and Training Systems. Country Report: Austria. URL: http://www.refernet.org.uk/docu-

ments/Country_Report_Austria.pdf, accessed 12 July 2007.

| Sessums, C.D. (2007). Learning Technologies, Teacher Education, and Social Media. URL: http://eduspaces.net/csessums/weblog/169433.html, accessed 30 July 2007.

| Sewell, M., Marczak, M. and Horn, M. (undated). The use of portfolio in assessment in evaluation. URL: http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/cyfernet/cyfar/Portfo~3.htm, accessed 5 July 2007.

| Shaklee, B.D., Barbour, N.E., Ambrose, R. and Hansford, S.J. (1997). Designing and using portfolios. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

| Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism at work. URL: http://www.teachandlearn.ca/ blog/2005/09/18/connectivism-at-work/, accessed 20 September 2005.

| Smith, K. and Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. In: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 625-648.

| Steiner, M. (2005). Dropout und Übergangsprobleme. Ausmaß und soziale Merkmale von BildungsabbrecherInnen und Jugendlichen mit Einstiegsproblemen in die Beruf-

stätigkeit. URL: http://www.equi.at/pdf/abschlussbericht_dropoutstudie.pdf, accessed 12 July 2007.

| Stiggins, R.J. (2004). New Assessment Beliefs for a New School Mission. URL: http:// www.assessmentinst.com/forms/NewBeliefs.pdf, accessed 5 July 2007.

| Strivens, J. (2007). A survey of e-pdp and ePortfolio practice in UK Higher Education. Centre for recording achievement. URL: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/embedded_ object.asp?id=22140&filename=Janet%20Strivens, accessed 28 March 2007.

| Taylor, M. and Betz, N. (1983). Applications of Self-Efficacy Theory to the Understanding

and Treatment of Career Indecision. In: Journal of Vocational Behavior, No. 22, pp. 63-81.

| Tessaring, M. and Wannan, J. (2004). Vocational education and training – key to the future. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/studies/cedefop_en.pdf, accessed 16 July 2007.

| Tolsby, H. (undated). Digital Portfolios: a Tool for Learning, Self-Reflection, Sharing and

Collaboration. URL: http://www.hum.aau.dk/~hakont/papers/portfolios.htm, accessed 30 January 2007.

| Tosh, D., Light, T.P., Fleming, K., and Haywood, J. (2005). Engagement with electronic portfolios: Challenges from the student perspective. In: Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol. 31, No. 3.

| Tosh, D. and Werdmuller, B. (2004). Creation of a learning landscape: weblogging and social networking in the context of e-portfolios. URL: http://eduspaces.net/dtosh/ files/7371/16865/Learning_landscape.pdf, accessed 5 July 2007.

| Ward, R. and Richardson, H.C. (2006). Getting what you want: e-portfolios 14-19, Careers Education Support Programme Briefing. URL: http://www.cegnet.co.uk/files/CEG-

NET0001/resources/777.doc, accessed 30 January 2006.

| Weinert, F.E. (1994). Lernen lernen und das eigene lernen verstehen. In K. Reusser and M. Reusser-Weyeneth (Hrsg.), Verstehen. Psychologischer Prozeß und didaktische Aufgabe (pp. 183-205). Bern: Huber.

| Wikipedia (2007). Electronic Portfolio. URL: http://instructionwiki.org/Portfolio,_Electronic, accessed 5 July 2007.

| Wilson, S. (2005). ePortfolio presentation to Sydney University, May, 2005. URL: http:// www.flickr.com/photos/vanishing/sets/370240/, accessed 30 January 2007.

| Yancey, K. (1998). Reflection In The Writing Classroom. Utah State University Press. ISBN10: 0874212383.

| Zeichner, K. and Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education pro-

grams: what we know and what we need to know. In: Teaching and Teacher Education, No. 17, (2001), pp. 613-621.

77

Footnotes 1) Eurostat, Structural indicators for Population and Social conditions (Sub-

grouping: Education and School): http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/ page?_pageid=1996,45323734&_dad=portal&_schema=POR-TAL&scree

n=welcomeref&open=/C/C3/C32&language=en&product=Yearlies_new_

population&root=Yearlies_new_population&scrollto=0, accessed 1 August 2007

2) http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressFiles/guidelines/progfile2001.asp

3) ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/ist/docs/opensourcesoftware-report.pdf 4) http://d4e.at/index.php?page=home 5) http://www.edumoodle.at/moodle

6) http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/chapter/452 7) http://www.osportfolio.org 8) http://www.mahara.org

9) http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/bookmarks.html#open

10) http://moodle.spdc.org/moofolio/ 11) http://moodlekurse.org/moodle/ 12) http://elearnjku.at/cms

13) http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/eportfolios.htm 14) http://www.e-me.org.uk/live_site/index2.htm

15) http://www.wolsinghamcollege.durham.sch.uk/ 16) http://lerntagebuch.ch

17) http://www.edutools.info/index.jsp?pj=1 18) http://www.wcet.info/home.asp

19) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/

References

20) http://fhw-wiss.factlink.net

78

7

ANNEX: Practical links

79

7 ANNEX: Practical links Best practices of e-portfolio in schools Name of school and initiative

Country

College of Business

Austria

Administration, Zell am See

Type of e-portfolio

Contact details

Student

www.edustream.at/moodle

development portfolio

Secondary School,

Austria

Learning

www.uehsbadenac.at

DotFolio

Australia

Technical

www.dotfolio.org

Baden

portfolio

implementation of a system

Internet Generation Project BIG

TieVie

Bulgaria

Student devel-

opment port-

www.cisco.com/global/BG

folio Finland

Personal

development

www.Virtuaaliyliopisto.fi

portfolio 2nd Chance School C2E

France

Reflection

www.e2c93.fr

Career Development

Ireland

Personal

careers.nuim.ie/students/jobsearch/

Centre, National

University of Ireland,

development portfolio

Maynooth

Evete Project

portfolio

Lithuania

Personal

development

Practical Links

portfolio

80

applications/index.shtml

www.evete.org

Name of school and initiative

Country

Type of e-portfolio

Contact details

ePortfolio Club

Poland

Assessment

www.ceo.org.pl

Notschool, TheCademy

United Kingdom

Personal

www.thecademy.net/inclusiontrust.org/

portfolio

development portfolio

Wolsingham School

and Community

United Kingdom

Assessment

www.wolsinghamcollege.durham.sch.uk

United Kingdom

Personal

www.leasowes.dudley.gov.uk

College, eMe

Leasowes Community College, Dudley

United Kingdom

Career Wales

United Kingdom

Florida State University

United States

Career Portfolio

Switzerland

Upper Secondary Level

Switzerland

MPS Riedmatt, Wollerau

development

www.e-me.org.uk

Learning

portfolio

www.s-cheshire.ac.uk/new_scc/home.asp

www.careerswales.com Personal

development

www.career.fsu.edu

portfolio

Upper Secondary School Leonhard, Basel

portfolio

portfolio

South Cheshire College, Crewe; Kit Car Project

NS-overview-notschoolhome.html

Learning

www.gyml.unibas.ch

Personal

www.begabung.ch

Portfolio

development portfolio

81

7.1 List of e-portfolio software Commercial e-portfolio software products Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

ANGEL E-Portfolio

http://www.angellearning.com/products/eportfolio/

Angel Learning, Inc.; 7601 Interactive Way; Suite 100; Indianapolis; IN 46278 E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +1 (317)-333-7300 Microsoft Windows Server and SQL data base No details (individual offers on demand)

Angel E-Portfolio is a portfolio module for the ‘Angel Learning Management Suite 7.2’.

The features offer (besides classical learning management software and e-portfolio func-

tions) integrated workflows (e.g. for automated increase of learning efficiency) as well as an integrated podcasting module for sending lectures automatically to students).

Product name:

Website:

Developer: Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

EPET – E-Portfolio extension Toolkit http://www.eportfolios.ac.uk/ePET

University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; School of Medical Education Development The Medical School; University of Newcastle upon Tyne; Newcastle NE2 4AB, UK E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +44-191-222-5020 ZOPE, MySQL, Apache

Costs/licensed version:

Open Source, free of charge for JISC members

EPET is a project supported by JISC, providing a set of special e-portfolio functions within existing generic learning management systems.

The functions are available via a web service and can be integrated into existing systems. Besides CV drafts (as offered in OSP 1.5), assignment of tasks by tutors, document management and structured learning study journals are among the available functions.

Furthermore, a personal development plan with instructions (with SWOT analysis) and drafts for a standardised curriculum vitae are among the range of functions. This tool has an IMS-compatible XML interface. Product name:

Website:

Practical Links

Developer: Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

eXact Portfolio

http://www.giuntilabs.com/info.php?vvu=35

Giunti Interactive Labs; Abbazia dell’Annunziata; Via Portobello; Baia del Silenzio; 16039 Sestri Levante (GE) – Italy

E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +39-0185-42123

No details No details

The eXact Portfolio is part of the Giunti LearneXact Learning Suite, consisting of: HRMS – Human Resource Management System; RMS – Recruiting Management System; LMS – Learning Management System; DR – Digital Repositories; LCMS – Learning Content

Management System. The portfolio module can be used on its own as well as along with all the above elements.

According to Giunti, applications for their portfolio range from school to university, HR management to recruiting agencies.

The features tend to be product-related and orientated to current (de facto) standards (IMS e-portfolio specification, HR-XML).

82

Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

iWebfolio

http://www.nuventive.com/products_iwebfolio.html

Nuventive LLC.; 3996 Mt Royal Boulevard; Allison Park; PA 15101 E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +1-412-487-8700 No details No details

iWebfolio aims to support the whole learning process and offers functions for the entire student life-cycle.

The tool is intended to accompany learners from ‘K12’ to college and university and

through their professional career. The added value lies in smooth integration into exist-

ing systems and support of interaction between students and tutors and interaction with external portfolio target groups. Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contat:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

LiveText

http://www.livetext.com

LiveText; Inc.; 1 S. La Grange Road; 2nd Floor; La Grange; Illinois 60525-2455 http://college.livetext.com/purchasing/ ; Tel: +1-866-548-3839 No details No details

College LiveText edu solutions are a set of web-based tools that enable schools and uni-

versities to manage and assess student programmes. They offer a combination of cur-

ricular learning support and individual learning documentation and the system is in use in many English and American universities.

Product name:

Website:

Developer: Contact: Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

PebblePad

http://www.pebblelearning.co.uk/

Pebble Learning Ltd; e-Innovation Centre; University of Wolverhampton; Shifnal Road; Telford TF2 9NT

Shane Sutherland, Colin Dalziel;

E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +44-(0)-1952-288300

No details

Individual accounts from £ 14.95 annually; institutional hosting on demand.

PebblePad has been developed mainly for use in schools. On a (very well-structured and attractive) flash interface learning artefacts can be saved step-by-step in a structured

way, linked to other objects and compiled into so-called ‘webfolios’. The predefined steps of the processes in the system permit little individual freedom in dealing with the pro-

gram, but the user interface and predefined templates support portfolio work with chil-

dren and older students at school. Product name:

Website:

Developer: Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

Rapid Progress File for PDP

http://rapidprojects.lboro.ac.uk/progress.html

University of Loughborough; Leicestershire; UK; LE11 3TU; E-mail: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/

Alan Maddocks; E-mail: [email protected] ; Tel: +44-(0)-1509-263171

No details

Free-of-charge for universities in the UK, but with specific licensing agreements.

The system has been developed for the specific PDP requirements of UK universities and supports the following tasks:

Stores achievements of the university, Draws up personal portfolios,

Drafts curricula vitae, Evaluates and assesses competencies,

Documents personal progress, Documents development of competencies

83

Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

TaskStream

http://www.taskstream.com/pub/electronicportfolio.asp TaskStream; Inc. ; 248 W. 35th Street; New York, NY 10001

E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +1-(212)-868-2700 No details No details

Presentation Portfolios – Create a professional and personalised collection of work to share within TaskStream or to publish to the Web. Collect and organise artefacts to showcase learning achievements.

Learning/Work Portfolios – Document the history of learning progress while working to achieve specific goals. Include reflections on the learning process while generating an archive of growth over time.

Resource Portfolios – Create a digital collection of resources that organises files, links and media. E-mail, publish and distribute these collections to others and manage them in real time.

Open Source software Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

Elgg Learning Landscapes http://www.elgg.com Curverider Ltd; UK

Dave Tosh; Ben Werdmuller ; E-mail: [email protected] Apache Webserver, MySQL data base, PHP Script Open Source, hosting possible

Elgg is a ‘Social networking system’ with a strong focus on networks and community

building. Each object can be ‘tagged’, and the tags automatically join together in a ‘tag

cloud’, an automatic network. Advanced versions focus on integration of media, presentation interface and usability.

Product name:

Website:

Developer: Contact:

Practical Links

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

Knowledge Exchange Exhibition and Presentation Toolkit | KEEP-Toolkit

http://www.cfkeep.org/html/index.php

Knowledge Media Lab of The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 51 Vista Lane; Stanford, CA 94305

E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +1-650-566-5100 No details

Open Source – GPL

Keep Toolkit works on the assumption that snapshots, i.e. information objects, can be collected in a structured way and displayed in various contexts as presentations.

The focus is on templates, web-based patterns, which, in addition to the information objects, provide central ideas for each type of ‘summary’, individual ‘aims’, personal ‘reflection’, external ‘references’ and for the actual data

It is very easy to upload elements and to compile them into a portfolio focusing on a

central theme. The developers of Keep have recently announced their participation in the ‘Sakai’ project, 14 which also serves as a basis for OSP.

84

Product name:

Website:

Developer: Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

Mahara Portfolio

http://www.mahara.org

New Zealand’s Tertiary Education Commission’s e-learning Collaborative Development Fund (eCDF); Bible College of New Zealand; Private Bag 93104; Waitakere 0650

Meredith Henson; E-mail: [email protected]; Mark Nichols ; Tel: +64-9-837-9752 Apache, MySQL, PHP Open Source, GPL

Mahara is a PHP-based portfolio tool, developed by an association of universities in New Zealand.

All user activities are locked and completely invisible to other users, and are made acces-

sible for internal or external users via (easily scalable) ‘views’ (presentation levels). Templates for these ‘views’ determine structures for the required information. The main elements and features are:

| Blogs: the user can create various blogs and share them with other persons, groups or make them accessible to an audience.

| Files: files are saved in structured folders, as in the Elgg software (but without tagging) | Administration of contacts: the administration of users, groups and communities enables scalable data access rights for the user.

Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

OSP – Open Source Portfolio

http://www.osportfolio.org/

The rSmart Group; 4343 East Camelback Road; Suite 210; Phoenix, AZ 85018 Chris Coppola; E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +1-602-840-7300 JAVA 1.4.2., Tomcat Server 5.5, Maven 1.0.2, MySQL 4.1. or Oracle 9i+ DB Open Source

OSP – Open Source Portfolio has been an independent Java-based presentation tool and is (from version 2.0 upwards) linked with the learning management system Sakai. The e-portfolio functions are based on the classic division into four portfolio areas: collect,

reflect, design and publish. These basic functions are performed with the help of wizards,

i.e. the individual steps are preset in templates. OSP offers course portfolios and individual portfolios, which users can build themselves.

Learning management software with e-portfolio functions Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contact:

Technical requirements: Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

Blackboard Portfolio for Vista and Campus Edition

http://www.blackboard.com/products/academic_suite/portfolio

Blackboard, Inc.; 1899 L Street NW, 11th Floor; Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +1-202-463-4860-2371

Windows 2000 Server + MS-SQL + IIS; Sun Solaris 8 + Oracle DB (8.1.7) + Apache Red Hat Linux 7.2 + Oracle DB (8.1.7) + Apache No details (individual offers)

The Blackboard and WebCT Portfolio is an e-portfolio module, completely integrated into the Vista or CE learning management systems, and facilitates individual integration of student data from courses and activities.

In addition to the functions of collection, annotation, presentation of learning achieve-

ments (also extracts of discussions can be integrated), the system offers a revision function for teachers and comprehensive guest management and tracking.

85

Product name:

Website:

Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

Moofolio

http://moodle.spdc.org/moofolio/

Matt Oquist; E-mail: [email protected]

Moodle Installation from 1.6 (Apache PHP MySQL) upwards Open Source

Moofolio is a ‘third-party’ development for the Moodle learning platform. The plug-in

makes two additional ‘blocks’ for individual work available: Portfolio Keeper, File Keeper The Portfolio Keeper enables users to build, inspect and administer their own portfolio and go through portfolios of other users with the help of a portfolio search function.

Each portfolio can be assigned to certain course subjects and contains artefacts to which students’ reflections can be added. When tutors have been granted access, they can add commentaries in the ‘teachers’ reflections’ section. Product name:

Website:

Developer: Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

Exabis

http://moodlekurse.org/moodle/

Exabis Internet Solutions ; http://www.exabis.at; riepl & angerer oeg; Panholzerweg 1; 4030 Linz

Andreas Riepl; E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +43-(0)732-717869-0 Moodle Installation (Apache PHP MySQL) Open Source (GPL)

This e-portfolio module is installed as a “Moodle block” in the learning platform Moodle. The current software works with all Moodle versions (up to 1.7+). As it is integrated as a “block”, the e-portfolio module can be made available to all courses by the administra-

tor. Teachers can activate the e-portfolio module for individual courses via the block configuration and make it available to students. Students’ entries are generally visible in all

courses in which the students have respective rights (as participants of a course) and for which the teachers have activated the module.

Content management systems with e-portfolio functions Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contact:

Practical Links

Technical requirements: Costs/Licensed version:

Short description

of features:

Factline Community Server – FCS http://www.factline.com

factline Webservices GmbH; Praterstraße 15/3/22; 1020 Wien

Paul Meinl; E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +43-1-2188503

Perl-based system with Linux or FreeBSD; Apache with OpenSSL, mod_perl and PHP4; PostgreSQL 7.2 or update version; Java 2 Runtimeenvironment 1.3

Hosting of single platforms from 850.00 euros upwards, single payment, plus 39.00 euros monthly.

Individual server installation available on request.

The FCS from Factline combines the areas of individual knowledge management, learn-

ing management and portfolio work through a unique referencing model for objects

(factID) and an individually scalable access rights system. Though no templates or workflows are defined or definable, an individual portfolio focusing on process documenta-

tion (e.g. through commentaries on different versions) can be built because of the flex-

ibility of FCS and the possibility to ‘aggregate’ content (factInclude). Advanced computer knowledge is required to take best advantage of the system.

86

Integrated Systems Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

Winvision – Digital Portfolio

http://www.winvision.nl/Products/EN/Products/Digital+Portfolio.htm

Winvision Products bv; Marconibaan 12; 3439 MS Niuwegein; Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +31-30-6580158 MS-Server 2003 + MsSQL No details

Winvision is an e-portfolio system developed for the education sector, focusing on PDP (Personal Development Planning) and PAP (Pupil Action Planning) as well as on the assessment of learning achievements by tutors.

Winvision is strongly linked to Microsoft and can therefore be integrated smoothly into existing Microsoft set-ups, such as Class-Server, Microsoft Learning Gateway or MSSharepointserver Portal. Product name:

Website:

Developer:

Contact:

Technical requirements:

Costs/Licensed version: Short description

of features:

Scioware Portfolio Presentation Manager

http://www.concord-usa.com/scio_ppm.htm Concorde USA, Inc., Canada and US E-mail: [email protected] No details No details

Short description of features:

The Scioware Portfolio Presentation Manager was developed by Concorde USA, Inc. In a

pilot scheme with Windesheim University (The Netherlands), the portfolio module was developed and installed as an integrated e-portfolio system for the entire university in only six months.

Great importance was attached to supporting the ‘Personal Development Planning’ proc-

ess already in use at this university.

The most important factor was to support students in the planning and realisation of

individual learning goals, in close cooperation with teachers and fellow students, as well as the possibility to export presentations to CDs/DVDs and smooth integration into the existing learning management system (Blackboard).

87

Copyright

This work has been licensed under a Creative Commons License Attribution – No Derivative Works 3.0

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This

publication reflects the views of the authors only, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission

cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. ISBN 3-902448-10-5